↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Acid reflux treatment for hoarseness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Acid reflux treatment for hoarseness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005054.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Hopkins, Umbreen Yousaf, Mette Pedersen

Abstract

Acid reflux is a common problem, and is thought to occur in 4% to 10% of patients presenting to ENT clinics. A recent study of reflux and voice disorders suggests that up to 55% of patients with hoarseness (dysphonia) have laryngopharyngeal reflux. Anti-reflux therapy is often used empirically in treating patients with hoarseness, where no other cause has been identified by examination. The aim of the review was to assess the effectiveness of anti-reflux therapy for patients with hoarseness, in the absence of other identifiable causes, whether or not a definitive diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux has been made. This was assessed by evaluation of prospective randomised controlled studies that were identified by a systematic review of the literature. Both medical and surgical treatments were evaluated. The Cochrane ENT Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1974 to 2005) and conference proceedings were searched with prespecified terms. The date of the last search was September 2005. Randomised controlled trials recruiting patients with hoarseness in the absence of other identifiable causes, such as malignancy, cord palsy or nodules, whether or not a definitive diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux has been made. Three reviewers examined the search results and identified studies before deciding which would be included in the review. 302 potential studies were identified by the search strategy. No trials were identified which met our inclusion criteria. Six randomised controlled trials were identified in which some, but not all patients presented with hoarseness, and were treated with proton pump inhibition. As we could not determine with certainty whether all these patients had hoarseness among the other laryngeal symptoms, these were excluded. However, these studies suggest a significant placebo response, which is comparable to the benefit derived from anti-reflux therapy in some studies. As no trials met our criteria, we are unable to reach any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of anti-reflux treatment for hoarseness. There is a need for high quality randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-reflux therapy for patients with hoarseness which may be due to laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Linguistics 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,810,666
of 22,026,693 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,639
of 12,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,071
of 378,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,026,693 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.