Do Laryngologists and General Otolaryngologists Manage Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Differently?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate current practices of laryngologists and non-laryngologists in management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR). METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of otolaryngology societies about LPR, and subgroup analysis was performed between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. This survey was conducted by the LPR Study Group of Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Otolaryngological Societies. RESULTS: A total of 535 otolaryngologists completed the survey. Among them, 127 were laryngologists and 408 were non-laryngologists. Collectively, symptoms most commonly attributed to LPR are cough after lying down/meal, throat clearing, and acid brash; most common findings are thought to be arytenoid erythema and posterior commissure hypertrophy. Respectively, 12.5% and 5% of non-laryngologists and laryngologists believe that ≥50% of LPR patients suffer from heartburn (P = .010). Non-laryngologists are more aware about some extra-laryngeal findings associated with LPR (eg, pharyngeal erythema) than laryngologists. Neither laryngologists nor non-laryngologists associated development of benign lesions of the vocal folds with reflux. The management of LPR substantially differs between groups, with laryngologists indicating increased awareness of (impedance)-pH monitoring as well as the prevalence and treatment of nonacid/mixed LPR. Conversely, non-laryngologists are much more likely to include gastroenterology referral in their management of presumed LPR. Respectively, 44.8% and 27.6% of non-laryngologists and laryngologists believe themselves not sufficiently knowledgeable about LPR. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists in diagnosis and treatment of LPR. Overall only one-third of responders believe themselves to be sufficiently educated about LPR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:E539-E547, 2020.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".