Symptom reports are not reliable during ambulatory reflux monitoring

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 107, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1826-1832

  Kavitt, Robert T ^a   Higginbotham, Tina ^a   Slaughter, James C ^a   Patel, Dilan ^b   Yuksel, Elif Saritas ^a   Lominadze, Zurabi ^a   Abou Ismail, Anas ^a   Pasricha, Trisha ^a   Garrett, C Gaelyn ^c   Hagaman, David ^a,c   Vaezi, Michael F ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Vanderbilt Voice Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY MONITORING; ARTICLE; AUDIO RECORDING; CHRONIC COUGH; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ESOPHAGEAL PH MONITORING; ESOPHAGUS MANOMETRY; FEMALE; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; HUMAN; IMPEDANCE AUDIOMETRY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; SOUND DETECTION; THORAX WALL; TRACHEA;

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AGED; COUGH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ESOPHAGEAL PH MONITORING; FEMALE; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, AMBULATORY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELF REPORT; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 84870779845     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.342     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Schappert SM, Burt CW. Ambulatory care visits to physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and emergency departments: United States, 2001-02. Vital Health Stat 13. 2006, 1-66.
2. Chung KF, Pavord ID. Prevalence, pathogenesis, and causes of chronic cough. Lancet 2008; 371: 1364-74.
3. Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA et al. Epidemiology of gastrooesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005; 54: 710-7.
4. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1392-413, 1413. e1-5.
5. Irwin RS. Chronic cough due to gastroesophageal reflux disease: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest [Review] 2006; 129 (1 Suppl): 80S-94S.
6. Harding SM. Chronic cough: practical considerations. Chest 2003; 123: 659-60.
7. Lacy BE, Weiser K, Chertoff J et al. The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Med 2010; 123: 583-92.
8. Kahrilas PJ, Sifrim D. High-resolution manometry and impedance-pH/ manometry: valuable tools in clinical and investigational esophagology. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 756-69.
9. Sifrim D, Holloway R, Silny J et al. Acid, nonacid, and gas reflux in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease during ambulatory 24-hour pHimpedance recordings. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1588-98.
10. Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Timmer R et al. Reproducibility of multichannel intraluminal electrical impedance monitoring of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 265-9.
11. Sifrim D, Dupont L, Blondeau K et al. Weakly acidic reflux in patients with chronic unexplained cough during 24 hour pressure, pH, and impedance monitoring. Gut 2005; 54: 449-54.
12. Blondeau K, Dupont LJ, Mertens V et al. Improved diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux in patients with unexplained chronic cough. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 723-32.
13. Wiener GJ, Richter JE, Copper JB et al. The symptom index: a clinically important parameter of ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 1988; 83: 358-61.
14. Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM et al. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1741-5.
15. Shay S, Tutuian R, Sifrim D et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1037-43.
16. Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR et al. Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 1992; 37: 849-56.
17. Piirila P, Sovijarvi AR. Objective assessment of cough. Eur Respir J 1995; 8: 1949-56.
18. Langlands J. The dynamics of cough in health and in chronic bronchitis. Th orax 1967; 22: 88-96.
19. Faruqi S, Thompson R, Wright C et al. Quantifying chronic cough: objective versus subjective measurements. Respirology 2011; 16: 314-20.
20. Clare Decalmer S, Webster D, Alice Kelsall A et al. Chronic cough: how do cough reflex sensitivity and subjective assessments correlate with objective cough counts during ambulatory monitoring? Th orax 2007; 62: 329-34.
21. Matos S, Birring SS, Pavord ID et al. An automated system for 24-h monitoring of cough frequency: the leicester cough monitor. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007; 54: 1472-9.
22. Birring SS, Fleming T, Matos S et al. The Leicester Cough Monitor: preliminary validation of an automated cough detection system in chronic cough. Eur Respir J 2008; 31: 1013-8.
23. Smith JA, Decalmer S, Kelsall A et al. Acoustic cough-reflux associations in chronic cough: potential triggers and mechanisms. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 754-62.