9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity and reliability of swallowing screening tools used by nurses for dysphagia: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dysphagia following neurological impairment increases the risk of dehydration, malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia, and even death. Screening for dysphagia has been reported to change negative outcomes. This review evaluated the validity and reliability of measurement tools for screening dysphagia in patients with neurological disorders to identify a feasible tool that can be used by nurses. Electronic databases were searched for studies from 1992 to 2015 related to dysphagia screening measurements. The search was applied to the Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, EBSCO host, and CEPS + CETD databases. A checklist was used to evaluate the psychometric quality. The tools were evaluated for their feasibility for incorporation into routine care by nurses in hospitals. A total of 104 papers were retrieved, and eight articles finally met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools ranged from 29% to 100% and from 65% to 100%, respectively. The interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent agreement. On the basis of quality evaluations, all the included studies had a risk of bias because of inadequate methodological characteristics. The Standardized Swallowing Assessment is the most suitable tool for detecting dysphagia because its psychometric properties and feasibility are higher than those of other screening tools that can be administered by nurses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence.

          Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test may vary with disease prevalence. Our objective was to investigate the associations between disease prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity using studies of diagnostic accuracy. We used data from 23 meta-analyses, each of which included 10-39 studies (416 total). The median prevalence per review ranged from 1% to 77%. We evaluated the effects of prevalence on sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model for each meta-analysis, with prevalence as a covariate. We estimated the overall effect of prevalence by pooling the effects using the inverse variance method. Within a given review, a change in prevalence from the lowest to highest value resulted in a corresponding change in sensitivity or specificity from 0 to 40 percentage points. This effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for either sensitivity or specificity in 8 meta-analyses (35%). Overall, specificity tended to be lower with higher disease prevalence; there was no such systematic effect for sensitivity. The sensitivity and specificity of a test often vary with disease prevalence; this effect is likely to be the result of mechanisms, such as patient spectrum, that affect prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. Because it may be difficult to identify such mechanisms, clinicians should use prevalence as a guide when selecting studies that most closely match their situation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis.

            Dysphagia is a potentially harmful feature, also in Parkinson's disease (PD). As published prevalence rates vary widely, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in PD in a meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic literature search in February 2011 and two independent reviewers selected the papers. We computed the estimates of the pooled prevalence weighted by sample size. Twelve studies were suitable for calculating prevalence rates. Ten studies provided an estimate based on subjective outcomes, which proved statistically heterogeneous (p < 0.001), with a pooled prevalence estimate with random effect analysis of 35% (95% CI 28-41). Four studies provided an estimate based on objective measurements, which were statistically homogeneous (p = 0.23), with a pooled prevalence estimate of 82% (95% CI 77-87). In controls the pooled subjective prevalence was 9% (95% CI 2-17), while the pooled objective prevalence was 23% (95% CI 13-32). The pooled relative risk was 3.2 for both subjective outcomes (95% CI 2.32-4.41) and objective outcomes (95% CI 2.08-4.98). Clinical heterogeneity between studies was chiefly explained by differences in disease severity. Subjective dysphagia occurs in one third of community-dwelling PD patients. Objectively measured dysphagia rates were much higher, with 4 out of 5 patients being affected. This suggests that dysphagia is common in PD, but patients do not always report swallowing difficulties unless asked. This underreporting calls for a proactive clinical approach to dysphagia, particularly in light of the serious clinical consequences. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi
                Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi
                TCMJ
                Tzu-Chi Medical Journal
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                1016-3190
                2223-8956
                Apr-Jun 2016
                21 June 2016
                : 28
                : 2
                : 41-48
                Affiliations
                [a ] Department of Nursing, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
                [b ] Department of Nursing, Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, Hualien, Taiwan
                [c ] Taiwanese Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Hualien, Taiwan
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Department of Nursing, Tzu Chi University, 701, Section 3, Chung-Yang Road, Hualien, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 3 8565301x2236; fax: +886 3 8574767. E-mail address: myc600221@ 123456mail.tcu.edu.tw (Y.-C. Ma).
                Article
                TCMJ-28-41
                10.1016/j.tcmj.2016.04.006
                5442897
                28757720
                4d5e2b6d-f789-441e-87b3-6b22bd690612
                Copyright: © 2016, Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 21 January 2016
                : 22 March 2016
                : 29 April 2016
                Categories
                Review Article

                nurse,reliability,swallowing screening tool,validity
                nurse, reliability, swallowing screening tool, validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article