Diagnostic Accuracy and Optimal Thresholds of Salivary Pepsin (Peptest) in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Clinical Otolaryngology Pub Date : 2026-10-02 Epub Date: 2026-08-05 DOI:10.1111/coa.70154
Do Hyun Kim, David W. Jang, Se Hwan Hwang
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy and Optimal Thresholds of Salivary Pepsin (Peptest) in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Do Hyun Kim,&nbsp;David W. Jang,&nbsp;Se Hwan Hwang","doi":"10.1111/coa.70154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design and Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Participants</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with LPR.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>The primary outcomes were diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), although specificity was slightly lower.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"51 6","pages":"819-830"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.70154","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

喉咽反流中唾液胃蛋白酶(Peptest)的诊断准确性和最佳阈值:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:唾液胃蛋白酶已被提出作为诊断喉咽反流(LPR)的无创生物标志物;然而,由于研究结果不一致,其诊断效用仍不确定。本荟萃分析评估了快速侧流试验(Peptest)与多通道腔内阻抗- ph (MII-pH)监测的参考标准的诊断准确性。设计和背景:队列研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。参与者:LPR患者。主要结局指标:主要结局为诊断优势比(DOR)、总受试者工作特征曲线和曲线下面积(AUC)。结果:共纳入11项研究,928份样本。在截断值为16、45-50和100 ng/mL时分析唾液胃蛋白酶对LPR的诊断性能。16 ng/mL时DOR和AUC分别为3.49和0.684,45 ~ 50 ng/mL时DOR和AUC分别为6.08和0.772,100 ng/mL时DOR和AUC分别为4.78和0.717。与单次采样相比,多次采样在所有截止值上显著提高了灵敏度(0.82比0.33-0.63)。结论:Peptest证明了作为LPR 24小时mii - ph监测的简单、无创诊断替代方案的潜力。在评估的阈值中,45-50 ng/mL的临界值提供了最高的诊断准确性。多次采集唾液样本可进一步提高检测灵敏度。然而,对于临床高度怀疑LPR但Peptest结果阴性的患者,24小时mii - ph监测仍然是必要的,因为该测试的阴性预测价值有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Otolaryngology
Clinical Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
106
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with: current otorhinolaryngological practice audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL head and neck oncology head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery continuing medical education and ORL training The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research. Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject. • Negative/null results In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书