2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.01.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Reflux Finding Score

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present study has made use of the Belafsky reflux finding score (RFS) for the gradation of laryngoscopic findings in the treatment of LPR. The validity and the reliability of the Belafsky RFS have been proven by a number of studies [6,13]. A study by Eckley et al [13] found that a statistically significant difference was observed in the mean RFS between patients with LPR (10.26 ± 3.58) and controls (5.52 ± 1.34) (p < 0.001), and the interclass correlation coefficient comparing test and retest for both raters was high (R1 = 0.956; R2 = 0.948).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The present study has made use of the Belafsky reflux finding score (RFS) for the gradation of laryngoscopic findings in the treatment of LPR. The validity and the reliability of the Belafsky RFS have been proven by a number of studies [6,13]. A study by Eckley et al [13] found that a statistically significant difference was observed in the mean RFS between patients with LPR (10.26 ± 3.58) and controls (5.52 ± 1.34) (p < 0.001), and the interclass correlation coefficient comparing test and retest for both raters was high (R1 = 0.956; R2 = 0.948).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The validity and the reliability of the Belafsky RFS have been proven by a number of studies [6,13]. A study by Eckley et al [13] found that a statistically significant difference was observed in the mean RFS between patients with LPR (10.26 ± 3.58) and controls (5.52 ± 1.34) (p < 0.001), and the interclass correlation coefficient comparing test and retest for both raters was high (R1 = 0.956; R2 = 0.948). The authors concluded that the Brazilian Portuguese version of the RFS proved to be a reliable and reproducible instrument for the diagnosis of LPR with a sensitivity of 82.08%, a specificity of 93.94%, a positive predictive value of 95.60%, and a negative predictive value of 76.54%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%