Abstract
Although the standard acid reflux test is often used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux (GER), the cost and benefit of this diagnostic test has never been evaluated. In this study, 184 consecutive referrals with esophageal symptoms were interviewed and had an esophagram, an esophageal manometry, and a modified acid reflux test (MART). The results were analyzed to determine how frequently MART altered the clinical diagnosis and to assess the cost of the new information. Patients with typical symptoms of GER (heartburn or regurgitation) were compared to those with atypical presentation (chest pain or dysphagia). Previously unsuspected GER was demonstrated in 63% of the atypical group, whereas no altered diagnosis was made in the typical group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when mean lower esophageal sphincter pressures and mean pH scores were compared. MART was cost effective only in the atypical group, in which the cost of an altered diagnosis was $633.00.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tuttle SG, Grossman MI: Detection of gastroesophageal reflux by simultaneous measurement of intraluminal pressure and pH. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 98:225–227, 1958
Skinner DB, Booth DJ: Assessment of distal esophageal function in patients with hiatal hernia and/or gastroesophageal reflux. Ann Surg 172:627–637, 1970
Johnson LF, DeMeester TR: Twenty-four pH monitoring of the distal esophagus: A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 62:325–332, 1974
Pope CE II: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (reflux esophagitis).In Gastrointestinal Disease. MH Sleisenger, JS Fordtran (eds). Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1983, pp 449–476
Welsh RW, Drake ST: Normal lower esophageal sphincter pressure: A comparison of rapid vs slow pull-through techniques. Gastroenterology 78:1446–1451, 1980
Drake WJ, Hogan WJ, Reid DP, Stewart ET, Arndorfer RC: Comparison between primary esophageal peristalsis following wet and dry swallows. Appl Physiol 35:851–857, 1973
Staniciu C, Hoare RC, Bennett JR: Correlation between manometric and pH tests for gastroesophageal reflux. Gut 18:536–540, 1977
Benz LJ, Hootkin LA, Margulies S, Donner MW, Cauthorne RT, Hendrix TR: A comparison of clinical measurements of gastroesophageal reflux. Gastroenterology 62:1–5, 1972
DeMeester TR, Johnson LF: The evaluation of objective measurements of gastroesophageal reflux and their contribution to patient management. Surg Clin North Am 56:39–53, 1976
Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Helm JF, Dent J: Pathogenesis of reflux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 81:376–394, 1981
Meshkinpour H, Glick ME, Sanchez P, Tarvin J: Esophageal manometry: A benefit and cost analysis. Dig Dis Sci 27:772–775, 1982
Showstack JA, Schroeder SA, Steinberg HR: Evaluating the costs and benefits of a diagnostic technology: The case of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Med Care 19:498–509, 1981
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cummings, D.R., Meshkinpour, H. Modified acid reflux test. Digest Dis Sci 30, 739–741 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320487
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320487