Year 2016 / Volume 108 / Number 4
Original
Sensitivity and specificity of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

174-180

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4082/2015

Carlos Teruel Sánchez-Vegazo, Vicenta Faro Leal, Alfonso Muriel García, Norberto Mañas Gallardo,

Abstract
Introduction: Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSFQ) is a questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) diagnosis, with a version in Spanish language, not yet compared to an objective test. Aims: To establish GSFQ diagnostic performance against 24-hour pH monitoring carried out in two tertiary care hospitals. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with typical GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) referred for pH monitoring fulfilled the GSFQ (score range 0-30, proportional to probability of GERD). Diagnosis of GERD was established when acid exposure time in distal esophagus was superior to 4.5% or symptom association probability was greater than 95%. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and best cut-off score determined, with corresponding sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) (95% confidence interval for each). Results: One hundred and fifty-two patients were included (59.9% women, age 47.9 ± 13.9; 97.4% heartburn; 71.3% regurgitation). pH monitoring was abnormal in 65.8%. Mean GSFQ score was 11.2 ± 6. Area under ROC was 56.5% (47.0-65.9%). Optimal cut-off score was 13 or greater: sensitivity 40% (30.3-50.3%), specificity 71.2% (56.9-82.9%), positive LR 1.39 (0.85-2.26) and negative LR 0.84 (0.67-1.07). Exclusion of questions 1 and 3 of the original GSFQ, easily interpreted as referred to dyspepsia and not GERD, improved only marginally the diagnostic performance: AUROC 59.1%. Conclusion: The GSFQ does not predict results of pH monitoring in patients with typical symptoms in a tertiary care setting.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
1. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, et al. The Montreal definition and.classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101: 1900-20.
2. Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA et al. Epidemiology of gastrooesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005; 54: 710-7.
3. Ponce J, Vegazo O, Beltrán B et al. Prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Spain and associated factors. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 175-84.
4. Sandler RS, Everhart JE, Donowitz M et al. The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 1500-11
5. Rey E, Moreno-Elola-Olaso C, Rodriguez Artalejo F. Impact of gastroesophageal symptoms on health resource usage and work absenteeism in Spain. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2006; 98: 518-26.
6. Moayyedi P, Axon ATR. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 3122-5.
7. Numans ME, Lau J, De Wit NJ et al. Short-term treatment with proton-pump inhibitors as a test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics. Ann InternMed 2004; 140: 518-27.
8. Lacy BE, Weiser K, Chertoff J et al. The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Med 2010; 123: 583-92.
9. Vakil N. The initial diagnosis of GERD. Bes Prac Res Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 365-71.
10. Vakil N, Halling K, Becher A et al. Systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25:2-14.
11. Dent J, Vakil N, Jones R et al. Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study. Gut 2010; 59: 714-21.
12. Jones R, Junghard O, Dent J et al. Development of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 1030-8.
13. Jonasson C, Moum B, Bang C et al. Randomised clinical trial: a comparison between a GerdQ-based algorithm and an endoscopy-based approach for the diagnosis and initial treatment of GERD. Alim Parmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1290-300
14. Berquist H, Agreus L, Tillander L et al. Structured diagnostic and treatment versus the usual primary care approach in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: e65-e73.
15. Pare P, Meyer F, Armstrong D et al. Validation of the GSFQ, a self-administered symptom frequency questionnaire for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2003; 17: 307-12.
16. Ruiz-Diaz MA, Suárez-Parga JM, Pardo A et al. Adaptación cultural al español y validación de la escala GSFQ (Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire). Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 32: 9-21.
17. Weusten NL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM et al. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1741-5.
18. Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999; 45: 172-80.
19. Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 108: 308-28.
20. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA 2006; 295: 1566-76.
21. Bytzer P, Jones R, Vakil N et al. Limited ability of the proton-pump inhibitor test to identify patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1360-6.
22. Jonasson C, Wernersson B, Of DA et al. Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 37: 564-72.
23. Kushnir VM, Sathyamurthy A, Drapekin J et al. Assessment of concordance of symptom reflux association tests in ambulatory Ph monitoring. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1080-7.
24. Bredenoord AJ, Tutuian R, Smout A et al. Technology review: esophageal impedance monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 187-94.
25. Lacy BE, Chehade R, Crowell MD. A prospective study to compare a symptom-based reflux disease questionnaire to 48-h wireless pH monitoring for the identification of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106: 1064-71.
Related articles

Digestive Diseases Image

A rare endoscopic pattern in a patient with gastroesophageal reflux disease

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9124/2022

Letter

Bowel angioedema induced by iodinated contrast media

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8627/2022

Letter to the Editor

Hypersensitivity to azathioprine in a patient with Crohn’s disease: a case report

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5031/2017

Citation tools
Teruel Sánchez-Vegazo C, Faro Leal V, Muriel García A, Mañas Gallardo N. Sensitivity and specificity of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. 4082/2015


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 889 visits.
This article has been downloaded 205 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 04/11/2015

Accepted: 20/12/2015

Online First: 28/01/2016

Published: 01/04/2016

Article revision time: 43 days

Article Online First time: 85 days

Article editing time: 149 days


Share
This article has been rated by 6 readers.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology