目的 调查汶川地震灾区中学生肠易激综合征（IBS）的患病情况，分析罗马Ⅱ和罗马Ⅲ诊断标准对该人群IBS患病率的影响。 方法 在汶川地震后2年半和3年，分别用罗马Ⅱ和罗马Ⅲ标准制定IBS中学生问卷调查表对地震灾区和非地震灾区5所中学的中学生进行2次调查，分析比较IBS患病率的变化。 结果 用罗马Ⅱ标准调查发现地震灾区中学生IBS患病率为23.6%；非地震灾区患病率为21.6%，二者比较无统计学意义（P=0.267）；用罗马Ⅲ标准调查发现地震灾区中学生IBS患病率为6.2%，非地震灾区患病率为4.6%，二者比较无统计学意义（P=0.139）。符合两种诊断标准的地震灾区IBS学生有10.3%，非地震灾区IBS学生有9.2%，两者差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。②支持两种诊断标准的症状方面，地震灾区IBS学生每天排便＞3次或每周排便＜3次等症状相比较有统计学意义（P＜0.001）。③按罗马Ⅲ标准，各亚型构成比IBS-C为30.4%，IBS-D为28.4%，IBS-M为8.8%，IBS-U为32.4%；按罗马Ⅱ标准，各亚型构成比为IBS-C为28.5%，IBS-D为47.7%，腹泻和便秘交替型为18.6%，罗马Ⅲ标准中的IBS-M和IBS-U合为一组与罗马Ⅱ标准中的腹泻和便秘交替型的构成比进行比较，二者有统计学意义（P＜0.001）。 结论 罗马Ⅱ和罗马Ⅲ两种标准调查地震灾区中学生IBS患病率和分型存在着差异，但两种标准对地震灾区IBS患病率的影响是对等的，患病率和分型的不同是由两种标准的本身的差异造成，可能更接近罗马Ⅲ诊断标准。
Objective To investigate the diagnostic value of esophageal high-resolution manometry combined with salivary pepsin levels in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD). Methods The patients with the chief complaint of “throat discomfort” for treatment at the Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, the First People’s Hospital of Longquanyi District, Chengdu / West China Longquan Hospital Sichuan University between January and October 2022 was selected. According to the reflux findings score and refluxsymptomindex at admission, the enrolled patients were divided into LPRD group and non-LPRD group. The basic patient information, esophageal high resolution manometry, and salivary pepsin concentration of included patients were collected. Results A total of 112 patients were included. Among them, there were 68 cases (60.7%) in the LPRD group and 44 cases (39.3%) in the non-LPRD group. The LPRD group was significantly younger (P=0.007) , but the salivary pepsin concentration (P<0.001), upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure (P<0.001) and distal contractile integral (P=0.007) were all higher than the non-LPRD group. The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that salivary pepsin concentration [odds ratio (OR)=1.077, 95%CI (1.035, 1.120), P<0.001] and UES resting pressure [OR=1.035, 95%CI (1.019, 1.052), P<0.001] were independent factors for the diagnosis of LPRD. The area under the working curve (0.971), specificity (0.99), and sensitivity (0.77) in the combined index were higher than those of saliva pepsin concentration and UES resting pressure. Conclusion Esophageal high resolution manometry and salivary pepsin are significant for the diagnosis of LPRD, and their combined application can improve the diagnostic value and also serve as an alternative method for the diagnosis of LPRD.