Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
Diagnostic Accuracy and Optimal Thresholds of Salivary Pepsin (Peptest) in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Kim Do Hyun, Jang David W, Hwang Se Hwan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Salivary pepsin has been proposed as a non-invasive biomarker for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR); however, its diagnostic utility remains uncertain due to inconsistent findings across studies. This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid lateral flow test (Peptest) compared to the reference standard of multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with LPR.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: In total, 11 studies comprising 928 samples were included. The diagnostic performance of salivary pepsin for LPR was analysed at cut-off values of 16, 45-50 and 100 ng/mL. The pooled DOR and AUC were 3.49 and 0.684 at 16 ng/mL, 6.08 and 0.772 at 45-50 ng/mL and 4.78 and 0.717 at 100 ng/mL, respectively. Multiple-time sampling significantly improved sensitivity compared to single-time sampling across all cut-off values (0.82 vs. 0.33-0.63 at 16 ng/mL; p < 0.0001), although specificity was slightly lower.
CONCLUSIONS: The Peptest demonstrates potential as a simple, non-invasive diagnostic alternative to 24-h-MII-pH monitoring for LPR. Among the evaluated thresholds, a cut-off of 45-50 ng/mL provided the highest diagnostic accuracy. Collecting multiple saliva samples may further enhance detection sensitivity. However, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of LPR but negative Peptest results, 24-h-MII-pH monitoring remains necessary to confirm the diagnosis due to the test's limited negative predictive value.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with LPR.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: In total, 11 studies comprising 928 samples were included. The diagnostic performance of salivary pepsin for LPR was analysed at cut-off values of 16, 45-50 and 100 ng/mL. The pooled DOR and AUC were 3.49 and 0.684 at 16 ng/mL, 6.08 and 0.772 at 45-50 ng/mL and 4.78 and 0.717 at 100 ng/mL, respectively. Multiple-time sampling significantly improved sensitivity compared to single-time sampling across all cut-off values (0.82 vs. 0.33-0.63 at 16 ng/mL; p < 0.0001), although specificity was slightly lower.
CONCLUSIONS: The Peptest demonstrates potential as a simple, non-invasive diagnostic alternative to 24-h-MII-pH monitoring for LPR. Among the evaluated thresholds, a cut-off of 45-50 ng/mL provided the highest diagnostic accuracy. Collecting multiple saliva samples may further enhance detection sensitivity. However, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of LPR but negative Peptest results, 24-h-MII-pH monitoring remains necessary to confirm the diagnosis due to the test's limited negative predictive value.