-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and dehydration, reduced rehabilitation, increased risk of anxiety and depression, longer hospital stay, increased likelihood of discharge to a care home, and increased risk of death. Early identification and management of disordered swallowing reduces risk of these difficulties.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective • To determine the diagnostic accuracy and the sensitivity and specificity of bedside screening tests for detecting risk of aspiration associated with dysphagia in people with acute stroke Secondary objectives • To assess the influence of the following sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for dysphagia - Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender) - Time post stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke swallow screening tools are identified - Definition of dysphagia used by the study - Level of training of nursing staff (both grade and training in the screening tool) - Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist - Type and threshold of index test - Type of reference test SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017 and December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the reference lists of included studies; and grey literature sources. We contacted experts in the field to identify any ongoing studies and those potentially missed by the search strategy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that were single-gate or two-gate studies comparing a bedside screening tool administered by nurses or other healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expert or instrumental assessment for detection of aspiration associated with dysphagia in adults with acute stroke admitted to hospital.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened each study using the eligibility criteria and then extracted data, including the sensitivity and specificity of each index test against the reference test. A third review author was available at each stage to settle disagreements. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. We identified insufficient studies for each index test, so we performed no meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities for the index tests.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 25 studies in the review, four of which we included as narratives (with no accuracy statistics reported). The included studies involved 3953 participants and 37 screening tests. Of these, 24 screening tests used water only, six used water and other consistencies, and seven used other methods. For index tests using water only, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46% to 100% and from 43% to 100%, respectively; for those using water and other consistencies, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 75% to 100% and from 69% to 90%, respectively; and for those using other methods, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 29% to 100% and from 39% to 86%, respectively. Twenty screening tests used expert assessment or the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) as the reference, six used fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and 11 used videofluoroscopy (VF). Fifteen screening tools had an outcome of aspiration risk, 20 screening tools had an outcome of dysphagia, and two narrative papers did not report the outcome. Twenty-one screening tests were carried out by nurses, and 16 were carried out by other HCPs (not including speech and language therapists (SLTs)). We assessed a total of six studies as low risk across all four QUADAS-2 risk of bias domains, and we rated 15 studies as low concern across all three applicability domains. No single study demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity with low risk of bias for all domains. The best performing combined water swallow and instrumental tool was the Bedside Aspiration test (n = 50), the best performing water plus other consistencies tool was the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; n = 30), and the best water only swallow screening tool was the Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST; n = 24). All tools demonstrated combined highest sensitivity and specificity and low risk of bias for all domains. However, clinicians should be cautious in their interpretation of these findings, as these tests are based on single studies with small sample sizes, which limits the estimates of reliability of screening tests.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to identify a single swallow screening tool with high and precisely estimated sensitivity and specificity based on at least one trial with low risk of bias. However, we were able to offer recommendations for further high-quality studies that are needed to improve the accuracy and clinical utility of bedside screening tools.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Mass Screening; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stroke
PubMed: 34661279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012679.pub2 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2020To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care.
METHODS
We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published.
RESULTS
We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) - 4.5, 95% CI - 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD - 11.38, 95% CI - 23.83 to 1.08, I = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty).
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Quality of Life; Stroke
PubMed: 32514597
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06126-y -
Cells Jul 2022Studies investigating the associations of oral function and dysphagia with frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults are increasing; however, they have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Studies investigating the associations of oral function and dysphagia with frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults are increasing; however, they have not been systematically summarized. We conducted a systematic review to investigate these associations. We searched electronic databases and synthesized relevant data using conventional (frequentist-style) and Bayesian meta-analyses. Twenty-four studies were found to be eligible for our review, including 20 cross-sectional and four prospective cohort studies. Older adults with frailty or sarcopenia had lower tongue pressure, according to the results of conventional meta-analysis (mean difference [95% confidence interval or credible interval]: -6.80 kPa [-10.22 to -3.38] for frailty and -5.40 kPa [-6.62 to -4.17] for sarcopenia) and Bayesian meta-analysis (-6.90 kPa [-9.0 to -4.8] for frailty, -5.35 kPa [-6.78 to -3.89] for sarcopenia). People with frailty had a higher odds ratio (OR) for dysphagia according to the results of conventional meta-analysis (3.99 [2.17 to 7.32]) and Bayesian meta-analysis (1.38 [0.77 to 1.98]). However, the results were inconclusive for people with sarcopenia. A prospective association could not be determined because of the lack of information and the limited number of studies. Decreased oral function and dysphagia can be important characteristics of frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.
Topics: Aged; Bayes Theorem; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deglutition Disorders; Frailty; Humans; Independent Living; Pressure; Prospective Studies; Sarcopenia; Tongue
PubMed: 35883642
DOI: 10.3390/cells11142199 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Jun 2022It is well known that oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) challenges eating, drinking, and swallowing by penetration to the airway. In clinical practice, thickening agents in...
Second update of a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations on texture modified foods and thickened liquids for adults (above 17 years) with oropharyngeal dysphagia.
BACKGROUND & AIMS
It is well known that oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) challenges eating, drinking, and swallowing by penetration to the airway. In clinical practice, thickening agents in liquid and texture modified diets are used to reduce pneumonia and secure nutritional status. The scientific evidence on this OD management is, however, limited. In 2016 we updated an original clinical guideline on OD in adults. Based on the strength of the evidence of two randomized control trials (RCTs), we provided a weak clinical recommendation against the use of thickening agents for liquid and none for diet. In the hope of finding new scientific evidence, we aimed to update the clinical guideline by examining the evidence if thickening of liquid and diet 1) improve survival and quality of life, 2) reduce the occurrence of aspiration risk and pneumonia, 3) improve dehydration, nutritional status, and mealtime performance, and 4) relate to patient preferences and intervention adherence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We first searched systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and secondly, the primary literature of RCTs. We undertook the search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2015, to May 19, 2021. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS
One new study was included, resulting in a total of three RCTs, of which two were already included in our former guideline. The three studies focused on the thickening of liquid, but no change of the former weak recommendation against the thickening of liquid could be made due to the quality of evidence evaluation.
CONCLUSION
There is no convincing evidence that thickened liquid or texture modified diet prevents death or pneumonia nor improves the quality of life, nutritional status, or oral intake in individuals with OD. There is a need for future studies to examine the effect and discuss outcome measures in OD management with thickening agents.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Diet; Humans; Meals; Pneumonia
PubMed: 35623866
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2022.03.039 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jun 2022To investigate whether respiratory muscle training is capable of reducing the occurrence of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia (swallowing or cough... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether respiratory muscle training is capable of reducing the occurrence of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia (swallowing or cough function) after stroke.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), PUBMED, and Web of Science were searched for studies published in English; the China Biology Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database were searched for studies published in Chinese up to August 10, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Eleven randomized control trials (RCTs) (N=523) met the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data and information were extracted by two reviewers independently and disagreements was resolved by consensus with a third coauthor. Primary outcome was the occurrence of respiratory complications, secondary outcomes would be represented by swallowing and cough function. The quality of each included RCT were assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the GRADE evidence profile was provided to present information about the body of evidence and judgments about the certainty of underlying evidence for each outcome.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Respiratory muscle training reduced the risk of respiratory complications (relative risk, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.93; I=0%; P=.03; absolute risk difference, 0.068; number need to treat, 14.71) compared with no or sham respiratory intervention. It also decreased the liquid-type Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores by 0.81 (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.43; I=39%; P<.0001). There was no significant association between respiratory muscle training and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores, cough function: increased FOIS scores by 0.47 (95% CI, -0.45 to 1.39; I=55%; P=.32), decreased peak expiratory cough flow of voluntary cough by 18.70 L per minute (95% CI, -59.74 to 22.33; I=19%; P=.37) and increased peak expiratory cough flow of reflex cough by 0.05 L per minute (95% CI, -40.78 to 40.87; I=0%; P>.99).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provided evidence that respiratory muscle training is effective in reducing the risk of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia by reducing penetration or aspiration during swallowing liquid bolus after stroke. However, there was no sufficient evidence to determine that respiratory muscle training improves cough function. Additional multicenter studies using larger patient cohorts are required to validate and support these findings. Furthermore, long-term follow-up studies should be performed to measure outcomes, while avoiding bias due to confounding factors such as heterogeneity of the etiologies of dysphagia.
Topics: Breathing Exercises; Cough; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Respiration Disorders; Stroke
PubMed: 34780729
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.10.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition Disorders; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25997528
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub4 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... Jan 2021Post-extubation dysphagia has been associated with adverse health outcomes. To assist service planning and process development for early identification, an understanding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-extubation dysphagia has been associated with adverse health outcomes. To assist service planning and process development for early identification, an understanding of the number of patients affected is required. However, significant variation exists in the reported incidence which ranges from 3% to 62%.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to (i) conduct a meta-analysis on the incidence of dysphagia after endotracheal intubation in adult critically ill patients and (ii) describe the extent of heterogeneity within peer-reviewed articles and grey literature on the incidence of dysphagia after endotracheal intubation.
DATA SOURCES
Databases CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, SpeechBITE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published before October 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
Data extraction occurred in a double-blind manner for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was determined using critical appraisal tools relevant to the individual study design. The overall quality of the synthesised results was described using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Raw data were transformed using Freeman-Tukey arcsine square root methodology. A random-effects model was utilised owing to heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
Of 3564 identified studies, 38 met the criteria for inclusion in the final review. A total of 5798 patient events were analysed, with 1957 dysphagic episodes identified. The combined weighted incidence of post-extubation dysphagia was 41% (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.50). Of the patients with dysphagia, 36% aspirated silently (n = 155, 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.50). Subgroup meta-regression analysis was unable to explain the heterogeneity across studies when accounting for the method of participant recruitment, method of dysphagia assessment, median duration of intubation, timing of dysphagia assessment, or patient population.
CONCLUSION
Dysphagia after endotracheal intubation is common and occurs in 41% of critically ill adults. Given the prevalence of dysphagia and high rates of silent aspiration in this population, further prospective research should focus on systematic and sensitive early identification methods.
Topics: Adult; Airway Extubation; Critical Illness; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Incidence; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32739246
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.The primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.
MAIN RESULTS
We added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).We assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).Swallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Acute Disease; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Lisinopril; Metoclopramide; Nifedipine; Physical Stimulation; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Time Factors; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 30376602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3 -
Nutrients Apr 2022Increasing bodies of epidemiological evidence indicate potential associations between dysphagia and the risk of frailty in older adults. We hypothesized that older... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increasing bodies of epidemiological evidence indicate potential associations between dysphagia and the risk of frailty in older adults. We hypothesized that older adults with symptoms of dysphagia might have a higher prevalence of frailty or prefrailty than those without dysphagia.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published through 20 April 2022. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that examined the associations between dysphagia and the existence of frailty or prefrailty in community-dwelling, facility-dwelling, or hospitalized adults aged 50 years or older were synthesized. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate study quality.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis comprised 12 cohorts, including 5,503,543 non-frailty participants and 735,303 cases of frailty or prefrailty. Random-effect meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association between dysphagia and the risk of frailty and prefrailty (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.51-4.20). In addition, we observed consistent results across the subgroups and heterogeneity assessments.
CONCLUSIONS
We propose including dysphagia assessment as a critical factor in the cumulative deficit model for identifying frailty in older adults. Understanding dysphagia and the potential role of nutritional supplements in older adults may lead to improved strategies for preventing, delaying, or mitigating frailty.
Topics: Aged; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deglutition Disorders; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Independent Living
PubMed: 35565784
DOI: 10.3390/nu14091812 -
German Medical Science : GMS E-journal 2022Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been used as a treatment option in the therapy of dysphagia for several years. In a previous review of the literature, it... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been used as a treatment option in the therapy of dysphagia for several years. In a previous review of the literature, it was concluded that NMES might be a valuable adjunct in patients with dysphagia and in patients with vocal fold paresis. However, due to different stimulation protocols, electrode positioning and various underlying pathological conditions, it was difficult to compare the studies which were identified and it was concluded that more empirical data is needed to fully understand the benefits provided by NMES. The purpose of this systematic review is, therefore, to evaluate recent studies regarding a potential effectiveness of transcutaneous NMES applied to the anterior neck as a treatment for dysphagia considering these different aspects.
METHOD
For this systematic review, a selective literature research in PubMed has been carried out on 5 May 2021 using the terms and screened for inclusion criteria by two reviewers in Rayyan. The search resulted in 62 hits.
RESULTS
Studies were excluded due to their publication language; because they did not meet inclusion criteria; because the topical focus was a different one; or because they did not qualify as level 2 studies. Eighteen studies were identified with varying patient groups, stimulation protocols, electrode placement and therapy settings. However, 16 studies have reported of beneficial outcomes in relation with NMES.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the most recent studies regarding a potential effectiveness of NMES as a treatment for oropharyngeal dysphagia considering different aspects. It could generally be concluded that there is a considerable amount of level 2 studies which suggest that NMES is an effective treatment option, especially when combined with TDT for patients with dysphagia after stroke and patients with Parkinson's disease, or with different kinds of brain injuries. Further research is still necessary in order to clarify which stimulation protocols, parameters and therapy settings are most beneficial for certain patient groups and degrees of impairment.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Electric Stimulation; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35875244
DOI: 10.3205/000310