The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS)
The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005537-200108000-00001
复制
发表时间：
2001-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Koufman, JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Belafsky, PC;Postma, GN;Koufman, JA
背景：医疗和手术结果的评估依赖于准确量化治疗结果的方法。目前，还没有经过验证的工具，其目的是记录咽喉反流（LPR）的物理发现和严重程度。Objective.评价反流发现评分（RFS）的信度和效度。方法：对40例经双探头pH监测确诊的LPR患者在治疗前及治疗后2、4、6个月进行评价。在每次访视时记录每例患者的RFS。对于重测观察者内可靠性评估，盲态喉科医生在两个不同的场合确定RFS。为了评估观察者间的可靠性，RIPS由两名不同的盲态喉科医生确定。结果队列的平均年龄为50岁（+/- 12标准差[SDI]）。73%是女性。入组时RFS为11.5（+/- 5.2 SD）。该评分在治疗2个月时改善至9.3（+/- 4.7 SD），在4个月时改善至7.3（+/- 5.5 SD），在6个月时改善至6.1（+/- 5.2 SD）（P <0.001，有趋势）。1号喉科医生的平均RFS在初始筛选时为10.8（+/- 4.1 SD），在重复评估时为10.8（+/- 4.0 SD）（r = 0.95，P <0.001）。2号喉科医生的平均RFS在初始筛选时为11.1（+/- 3.8 SD），在重复评估时为10.9（+/- 3.7 SD）（r = 0.95，P <0.001）。观察者间变异的相关系数为0.90（P <0.001）。结论. RIPS准确地记录了LPR患者的治疗效果，它表现出良好的观察者间和观察者内重现性。
Background: The evaluation of medical and surgical outcomes relies on methods of accurately quantifying treatment results. Currently, there is no validated instrument whose purpose is to document the physical findings and severity of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Objective. To evaluate the validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Methods: Forty patients with LPR confirmed by double-probe pH monitoring were evaluated pretreatment and 2,4, and 6 months after treatment. The RFS was documented for each patient at each visit. For test-retest intraobserver reliability assessment, a blinded laryngologist determined the RFS on two separate occasions. To evaluate interobserver reliability, the RIPS was determined by two different blinded laryngologists. Results. The mean age of the cohort was 50 years (+/- 12 standard deviation [SDI). Seventy-three percent were women. The RFS at entry was 11.5 (+/- 5.2 SD). This score improved to 9.3 (+/- 4.7 SD) at 2 months, 7.3 (+/- 5.5 SD) at 4 months, and 6.1 (+/- 5.2 SD) at 6 months of treatment (P < .001 with trend). The mean RFS for laryngologist no. 1 was 10.8 (+/- 4.1 SD) at the initial screening and 10.8 (+/- 4.0 SD) at the repeat evaluation (r = 0.95, P < .001). The mean RFS for laryngologist no. 2 was 11.1 (+/- 3.8 SD) at the initial screening and 10.9 (+/- 3.7 SD) at the repeat evaluation (r = 0.95, P < .001). The correlation coefficient for interobserver variability was 0.90 (P < .001). Conclusions. The RIPS accurately documents treatment efficacy in patients with LPR It demonstrates excellent inter- and intraobserver reproducibility.