Objective: To evaluate differences between manual and automated analyses of 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Study Design: Case series with planned data collection. Setting: Academic center outpatient clinic. Methods: The study group comprised 127 patients with symptoms suspicious of laryngopharyngeal reflux, who underwent 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring. Automated and manual analyses were performed for each patient. The following parameters were compared between analyses: number of proximal reflux episodes, proximal exposure time, symptom index, and symptom association probability. Results: The number of proximal reflux episodes detected by manual analysis was significantly lower than that detected by automated analysis, except in acid reflux cases. The false positive of automated analysis was 39.8%. In addition, the proximal exposure time for manual analysis was significantly lower than that for automated analysis, except in cases of acid reflux. Symptom index and symptom association probability values based on manual analysis were significantly lower than in automated analysis, except in heartburn cases. Conclusions: Automated analysis demonstrated a tendency of excessive reflux measurement when compared with manual analysis. It is necessary to increase the accuracy of laryngopharyngeal reflux diagnosis through manual analysis.
- laryngopharyngeal reflux
- manual analysis
- multichannel intraluminal impedance