The impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux on patient-reported quality of life
The impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux on patient-reported quality of life
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005537-200404000-00014
复制
发表时间：
2004-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Pashos, CL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carrau, RL;Khidr, A;Pashos, CL
目的/假设：目的是评估患者报告的结果，特别是咽喉反流患者的健康相关生活质量，并将这些报告水平与胃食管反流病患者和一般人群的健康相关生活质量进行比较。研究设计：前瞻性研究。方法：作为验证喉咽反流健康相关生活质量仪器的前瞻性研究的一部分，在开始治疗之前收集患者报告的数据。使用通用工具 Short Form-36 (SF-36)，可以将喉咽反流患者的健康相关生活质量与胃食管反流病患者和美国普通人群的现有基准进行比较。结果：117例咽喉反流患者常报告多种症状，最常见的是慢性清喉咙（85.5%）、癔球症（82.1%）和声音嘶哑（80.3%）。在 8 个 SF-36 领域中的 7 个领域中，他们的平均健康相关生活质量在统计上显着低于美国普通人群。咽喉反流患者与普通人群之间最显着的差异在于社会功能和身体疼痛（P < .001）。喉咽反流患者的社会功能 (P < .001) 和活力 (P = .0017) 平均得分显着低于胃食管反流病患者。在其余六个领域中的五个领域中，喉咽反流患者的平均评分低于胃食管反流病患者，但这些差异不具有统计学意义。结论：该研究对健康相关生活质量的评估表明，咽喉反流对患者的生活有显着的负面影响。尽管其影响在某些方面与胃食管反流病相似，但咽喉反流对患者的社会功能和活力的影响更为显着。
Objectives/Hypothesis: The objectives were to assess patient-reported outcomes, specifically, the health-related quality of life of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux, and to compare those reported levels with the health-related quality of life of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and a general population. Study Design: Prospective study. Methods: As part of a prospective study to validate a health-related quality of life instrument for laryngopharyngeal reflux, patient-reported data were collected before the initiation of therapy. Use of the Short Form-36 (SF-36), a generic instrument, allowed the health-related quality of life of the patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux to be compared with benchmarks existing for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and a general U.S. population. Results: The 117 patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux often reported multiple symptoms, most frequently, chronic throat-clearing (85.5%), globus (82.1%), and hoarseness (80.3%). Their mean health-related quality of life was statistically significantly worse than that of a general U.S. population in seven of the eight SF-36 domains. The most dramatic differences between patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux and the general population were in social functioning and bodily pain (P < .001). Mean scores for patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux were significantly lower than those for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease in social functioning (P < .001) and vitality (P = .0017). In five of the six remaining domains, patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux reported lower mean scores than did patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, but those differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The study's assessment of health-related quality of life suggests that laryngopharyngeal reflux has a significant negative impact on the lives of patients. Although its impact is similar in some respects to that of gastroesophageal reflux disease, laryngopharyngeal reflux has a more significant impact on patients' social functioning and vitality.