Association of laryngopharyngeal reflux with chronic rhinosinusitis prevalence in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but the evidence from individual studies remains inconsistent. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the association between LPR and CRS in adults. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang for observational studies that evaluate the relationship between LPR and CRS in adult populations. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q test and the I² statistic. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. A total of eight cross- sectional studies involving 3,456 participants were included in the analysis. The results indicated a significant association between LPR and a higher prevalence of CRS in adults (OR = 4.77, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.07; p < 0.001; I² = 63%). Sensitivity analysis restricted to high-quality studies (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score ≥ 7) produced similar results with no observed heterogeneity (OR = 5.98, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.92; I² = 0%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a stronger association in studies with smaller sample sizes and when both LPR and CRS were diagnosed using objective methods. No significant evidence of publication bias was detected through Egger's test (p = 0.35); however, this analysis was underpowered and should be interpreted cautiously in the context of the small-study effect. In conclusion, LPR may be associated with an increased prevalence of CRS in adults, especially when both conditions are diagnosed using objective criteria. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm this association and explore the underlying mechanisms.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it