Diagnosis and Etiological Analysis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease by Gastric Filling Ultrasound and GerdQ Scale

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the diagnosis and etiological analysis of GERD by gastric filling ultrasound and GerdQ scale. Methods. The clinical data of 100 suspected GERD patients were selected for retrospective analysis. The selection time was from June 2016 to June 2019. According to the gold standard (endoscopy) results, they were divided into the gastroesophageal reflux group (positive, n = 62) and the nongastroesophageal reflux group (negative, n = 38); both gastric filling ultrasound and GerdQ scale examination were performed to compare the positive predictive value and negative predictive value, evaluate the abdominal esophageal length, His angle, and GerdQ scale score, and analyze the AUC value, sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index of His angle, length of abdominal esophagus, combined ultrasound parameters, and GerdQ scale in the diagnosis of GERD. Results. 100 patients with suspected GERD were diagnosed as GERD by endoscopy; in a total of 62 cases, the percentage was 62.00%. Among them, 28 cases were caused by the abnormal structure and function of the antireflux barrier, accounting for 45.16%, 18 cases were caused by the reduction of acid clearance of the esophagus, accounting for 29.03%, and 16 cases were caused by the weakening of the esophageal mucosal barrier, accounting for 25.81%. After ultrasound detection, the positive predictive value was 88.71% and the negative predictive value was 81.58%; after the GerdQ scale was tested, the positive predictive value was 71.43% and the negative predictive value was 54.05%. The length of the abdominal esophagus in the gastroesophageal reflux group was lower than that of the nongastroesophageal reflux group, while the scores of His angle and GerdQ scale were higher than those in the gastroesophageal reflux group ( P < 0.05 ). ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC values of His angle, length of abdominal esophagus, combined ultrasound parameters, and GerdQ scale to diagnose GERD were 0.957, 0.861, 0.996, and 0.931 ( P < 0.05 ), their sensitivity was 93.5%, 98.40%, 98.40%, and 90.30%, and the specificity was 92.10%, 63.20%, 100.00%, and 92.10%, respectively. Conclusion. Both gastric filling ultrasound and GerdQ scale have a certain application value in the diagnosis of GERD, but the former has a higher accuracy rate, and it is more common for gastroesophageal reflux caused by abnormal structure and function of antireflux barrier in etiological analysis.

Prevalence, General and Periodontal Risk Factors of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in China

“… 17 , 19–21 A recent study in China showed that the sensitivity and specificity of GERDQ were 90.30% and 92.10% for GERD diagnosis, respectively. 18 …”

“… 16 GERD was diagnosed in participants with a score of ≥ 8 on the evaluation of GERDQ. 16 , 18 All participants in the population with a score of < 8 on the evaluation of GERDQ were used as control participants in the analyses.…”

Diagnostic accuracy of gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…15 The flow diagram of study selection is presented in Figure 1. Twelve of the studies were prospective studies, while the remainder was a cross-sectional study 16 and a retrospective study 17 ; more than half (8/14) of the studies were done in Asian countries, [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] while the rest were mostly from Western countries 2,23-27 (Table 1). For the reference test, five studies used only upper endoscopy, [15][16][17][18]22 four studies used only pH monitoring/ impedance, 19,23,26,27 and five studies used both upper endoscopy and pH monitoring/impedance 2,20,21,24,25 (Table S3).…”

“…Twelve of the studies were prospective studies, while the remainder was a cross-sectional study 16 and a retrospective study 17 ; more than half (8/14) of the studies were done in Asian countries, [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] while the rest were mostly from Western countries 2,23-27 (Table 1). For the reference test, five studies used only upper endoscopy, [15][16][17][18]22 four studies used only pH monitoring/ impedance, 19,23,26,27 and five studies used both upper endoscopy and pH monitoring/impedance 2,20,21,24,25 (Table S3). Studies using only upper endoscopy as the reference test can differentiate ERD and non-ERD, studies using only pH monitoring/impedance can only detect abnormal acid exposure, while studies utilizing both upper endoscopy and pH monitoring/impedance can detect ERD, NERD, and normal patients.…”

Clinical Study on the Evaluation of the Condition of Patients with Gastric Tumors and the Choice of Surgical Treatment by Gastric Ultrasonic Filling Method

“…It is precisely because of the above reasons that before the 1980s, it was agreed at home and abroad that the ultrasound examination of the gastrointestinal tract was basically a blind spot [ 8 ], which did not receive due attention and development. It was not until the introduction of gastrointestinal ultrasound contrast agents, which greatly improved the imaging performance of gastrointestinal ultrasound, that gastrointestinal ultrasound was rapidly applied and developed, and gradually became an important means of diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases, Wang et al [ 9 ] pointed out that gastric filling ultrasonography has a high diagnostic value in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Currently, gastric filling ultrasonography (GFUS) has been widely used in the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer.…”