Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2026
Emerging Microbiome Findings in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lechien Jérôme R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the current literature linking laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) with microbiome impairments.
METHODS: Two independent investigators conducted a systematic literature search for studies reporting microbiome findings in LPRD patients through PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timing, and Setting (PICOTS) framework were followed. A methodological bias analysis was conducted with the Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies.
RESULTS: Of the 585 identified papers, eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including 245 patients with suspected or confirmed LPRD. Two studies using objective diagnostic approaches confirmed that LPRD is associated with significantly reduced alpha and beta diversities compared to controls. Streptococcus and Actinomyces emerged as key taxa consistently differentiating LPRD patients from controls across multiple studies. However, significant methodological heterogeneity was observed in LPRD diagnosis, microbiome assessment methods, and control group definitions.
CONCLUSION: Preliminary literature suggests that patients with suspected or confirmed LPRD exhibit salivary microbiome alterations characterized by reduced diversity and selective microbial shifts. Future high-quality methodological studies are needed to elucidate the mechanistic relationship and clinical consequences of LPRD-related dysbiosis.
METHODS: Two independent investigators conducted a systematic literature search for studies reporting microbiome findings in LPRD patients through PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timing, and Setting (PICOTS) framework were followed. A methodological bias analysis was conducted with the Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies.
RESULTS: Of the 585 identified papers, eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including 245 patients with suspected or confirmed LPRD. Two studies using objective diagnostic approaches confirmed that LPRD is associated with significantly reduced alpha and beta diversities compared to controls. Streptococcus and Actinomyces emerged as key taxa consistently differentiating LPRD patients from controls across multiple studies. However, significant methodological heterogeneity was observed in LPRD diagnosis, microbiome assessment methods, and control group definitions.
CONCLUSION: Preliminary literature suggests that patients with suspected or confirmed LPRD exhibit salivary microbiome alterations characterized by reduced diversity and selective microbial shifts. Future high-quality methodological studies are needed to elucidate the mechanistic relationship and clinical consequences of LPRD-related dysbiosis.