Objective: Performers may be at increased risk of reflux due to the physiology of singing and lifestyle factors [1,2]. Vocal pathologies [3] and acute vocal emergencies [4] are more common in performers with a history of acid reflux. Given how reflux can lead to other issues in performers, our objective is to determine the prevalence of reflux and reflux symptoms in college vocal performers and the effectiveness of their management strategies.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all vocal performers who participated in a voice screening at a university voice clinic from September 2017 to November 2023. Data include the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) score, positive or negative diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) from the otolaryngologist, and if they were receiving medical treatment for reflux at the time of the study. Chi-square analyses were conducted using SPSS.

Results: 256 students with four different performance majors received voice screenings. 40 students (20% of those with a laryngeal examination) received an LPR diagnosis. Eleven students were receiving medical treatment for reflux at the time of the study. There was no significant difference in proportions of those with and without LPR receiving or not receiving treatment, _2(1) = .361, p = .548. A higher proportion of those without LPR had RSI scores 13 and below (86.7%) and RSI scores above 13 (57.1%), _2(1) = 15.238, p < .001.

Conclusions: The prevalence of reflux-related laryngeal changes in college vocal performers is around 20%. Students receiving treatments for reflux are just as likely to present with laryngeal findings of LPR as those not receiving treatment. These data suggest the treatments they are using do not adequately resolve laryngeal changes related to reflux. As other studies have stated [5], the RSI does not appear to be specific to reflux symptoms. This suggests that other measures may be necessary to determine the scope of the problem in college singers.

References
1. Lechien et al., 2019: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2018.08.008
2. Kwok & Eslick, 2019: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.09.002
3. Zuim et al., 2023: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.12.038
4. Campagnolo et al., 2023: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.02.004
5. Schneider et al., 2019: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27583