TY - JOUR
T1 - The Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
AU - Lacy, Brian E.
AU - Weiser, Kirsten
AU - Chertoff, Jocelyn
AU - Fass, Ronnie
AU - Pandolfino, John E.
AU - Richter, Joel E.
AU - Rothstein, Richard I.
AU - Spangler, Chad
AU - Vaezi, Michael F.
PY - 2010/7
Y1 - 2010/7
N2 - Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent condition that imposes a significant economic impact on the US health care system. The utility of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been adequately reviewed. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. EMBASE (1980-December 2008), OVID MEDLINE, and PubMed, (1966-December 2008) were searched using "gastroesophageal reflux" and "adults" with other terms, including medications, diagnostic tests, symptoms, and epidemiologic terms. Studies were limited to human trials, English language, and full articles. Results: Heartburn is a reasonably sensitive symptom for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, although it does not reliably predict esophagitis. Standardized questionnaires have limited specificity, whereas the double-contrast barium swallow has a low sensitivity to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. The role of esophageal manometry is limited to accurate placement of a pH-measuring device. pH testing has reasonable sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of upper endoscopy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux is lower than that of pH tests. Conclusion: The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease remains difficult. In the absence of alarm symptoms, empiric treatment with acid suppression is warranted. pH testing provides valuable information in many patients, although the clinical utility of newer tests needs to be determined. Endoscopy should not be the first test used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux.
AB - Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent condition that imposes a significant economic impact on the US health care system. The utility of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been adequately reviewed. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. EMBASE (1980-December 2008), OVID MEDLINE, and PubMed, (1966-December 2008) were searched using "gastroesophageal reflux" and "adults" with other terms, including medications, diagnostic tests, symptoms, and epidemiologic terms. Studies were limited to human trials, English language, and full articles. Results: Heartburn is a reasonably sensitive symptom for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, although it does not reliably predict esophagitis. Standardized questionnaires have limited specificity, whereas the double-contrast barium swallow has a low sensitivity to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. The role of esophageal manometry is limited to accurate placement of a pH-measuring device. pH testing has reasonable sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of upper endoscopy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux is lower than that of pH tests. Conclusion: The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease remains difficult. In the absence of alarm symptoms, empiric treatment with acid suppression is warranted. pH testing provides valuable information in many patients, although the clinical utility of newer tests needs to be determined. Endoscopy should not be the first test used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux.
KW - Acid reflux
KW - Bravo pH capsule
KW - Esophageal manometry
KW - Esophagus
KW - Gastroesophageal reflux disease
KW - Impedance
KW - Proton pump inhibitor
KW - pH probe
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953684944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953684944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.01.007
DO - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.01.007
M3 - Review article
C2 - 20493461
AN - SCOPUS:77953684944
SN - 0002-9343
VL - 123
SP - 583
EP - 592
JO - American journal of medicine
JF - American journal of medicine
IS - 7
ER -