The Role of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori among patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. The secondary objective was determining if H pylori eradication leads to greater symptom improvement in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux as compared with standard proton pump inhibitor therapy alone. Data Sources EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Review Methods A systematic review was performed of studies assessing the diagnosis or treatment of H pylori among patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case‐control studies, and case series were included. A meta‐analysis of prevalence data and assessment of heterogeneity was performed on relevant studies. Results Fourteen studies were analyzed in the review, with 13 eligible for the meta‐analysis. We determined that the prevalence of H pylori among patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux was 43.9% (95% confidence interval, 32.1‐56.5). The heterogeneity of studies was high, with an overall I 2 value of 92.3%. We were unable to quantitatively assess findings for our secondary outcome, since H pylori identification and treatment were not the primary focus of the majority of studies. Conclusion There is a high rate of H pylori infection among patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. The infection rate in North America and Western Europe has not been adequately studied. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding the testing and treatment of H pylori infection among patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".