-
Journal of the Neurological Sciences Nov 2021Dysphagia is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The effects of antiparkinsonian drugs on dysphagia are controversial. Several treatments for dysphagia are available but... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The effects of antiparkinsonian drugs on dysphagia are controversial. Several treatments for dysphagia are available but there is no consensus on their efficacy in PD.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the literature and to define consensus statements on the treatment of dysphagia in PD and related nutritional management.
METHODS
A multinational group of experts in the field of neurogenic dysphagia and/or Parkinson's disease conducted a systematic evaluation of the literature and reported the results according to PRISMA guidelines. The evidence from the retrieved studies was analyzed and discussed in a consensus conference organized in Pavia, Italy, and the consensus statements were drafted. The final version of statements was subsequently achieved by e-mail consensus.
RESULTS
The literature review retrieved 64 papers on treatment and nutrition of patients with PD and dysphagia, mainly of Class IV quality. Based on the literature and expert opinion in cases where the evidence was limited or lacking, 26 statements were developed.
CONCLUSIONS
The statements developed by the Consensus panel provide a guidance for a multi-disciplinary treatment of dysphagia in patients with PD, involving neurologists, otorhinolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, phoniatricians, speech-language pathologists, dieticians, and clinical nutritionists.
Topics: Consensus; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Italy; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 34624796
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.120008 -
Dysphagia Feb 2023Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common post-stroke and can have serious consequences for patients. Understanding dysphagia recovery is critically important to inform... (Review)
Review
Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common post-stroke and can have serious consequences for patients. Understanding dysphagia recovery is critically important to inform prognostication and support patients and professionals with care planning. This systematic review was undertaken to identify clinical predictors of dysphagia recovery post-stroke. Online databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane) were searched for studies reporting longitudinal swallowing recovery in adults post-stroke. Dysphagia recovery was defined as improvement measured on a clinical swallowing scale or upgrade in oral and/or enteral feeding status by the end of the follow-up period. The search strategy returned 6598 studies from which 87 studies went through full-text screening, and 19 studies were included that met the eligibility criteria. Age, airway compromise identified on instrumental assessment, dysphagia severity, bilateral lesions, and stroke severity were identified as predictors of persistent dysphagia and negative recovery in multiple logistic regression analysis. The available literature was predominated by retrospective data, and comparison of outcomes was limited by methodological differences across the studies in terms of the choice of assessment, measure of recovery, and period of follow-up. Future prospective research is warranted with increased representation of haemorrhagic strokes and uniform use of standardized scales of swallowing function.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Deglutition Disorders; Retrospective Studies; Stroke; Deglutition; Enteral Nutrition
PubMed: 35445366
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10443-3 -
European Geriatric Medicine Oct 2022Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is highly common across the world. It is reported that over 90% of CAP in older adults may be due to aspiration. However, the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is highly common across the world. It is reported that over 90% of CAP in older adults may be due to aspiration. However, the diagnostic criteria for aspiration pneumonia (AP) have not been widely agreed. Is there a consensus on how to diagnose AP? What are the clinical features of patients being diagnosed with AP? We conducted a systematic review to answer these questions.
METHODS
We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and Cochrane to review the steps taken toward diagnosing AP. Search terms for "aspiration pneumonia" and "aged" were used. Inclusion criteria were: original research, community-acquired AP, age ≥ 75 years old, acute hospital admission.
RESULTS
A total of 10,716 reports were found. Following the removal of duplicates, 7601 were screened, 95 underwent full-text review, and 9 reports were included in the final analysis. Pneumonia was diagnosed using a combination of symptoms, inflammatory markers, and chest imaging findings in most studies. AP was defined as pneumonia with some relation to aspiration or dysphagia. Aspiration was inferred if there was witnessed or prior presumed aspiration, episodes of coughing on food or liquids, relevant underlying conditions, abnormalities on videofluoroscopy or water swallow test, and gravity-dependent distribution of shadows on chest imaging. Patients with AP were older, more frailer, and had more comorbidities than in non-AP.
CONCLUSION
There is a broad consensus on the clinical criteria to diagnose AP. It is a presumptive diagnosis with regards to patients' general frailty rather than in relation to swallowing function itself.
Topics: Aged; Community-Acquired Infections; Deglutition; Humans; Pneumonia; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Water
PubMed: 36008745
DOI: 10.1007/s41999-022-00689-3 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of dysphagia in older adults, subgrouping by recruitment settings and varying dysphagia... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of dysphagia in older adults, subgrouping by recruitment settings and varying dysphagia assessment methods.
METHODS
Five major databases were systematically searched through January 2022. A random-effects model for meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the pooled prevalence.
RESULTS
Prevalence of dysphagia in the community-dwelling elderly screened by water swallow test was 12.14% (95% CI: 6.48% to 19.25%, I = 0%), which was significantly lower than the combined prevalence of 30.52% (95% CI: 21.75% to 40.07%, I = 68%) assessed by Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) and volume-viscosity swallow test (V-VST). The dysphagia prevalence among elderly nursing home residents evaluated by SSA was 58.69% (95% CI: 47.71% to 69.25%, I = 0%) and by the Gugging Swallowing Screen test (GUSS) test was 53.60% (95% CI: 41.20% to 65.79%, I = 0%). The prevalence of dysphagia in hospitalized older adults screened by the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool was 24.10% (95% CI: 16.64% to 32.44%, I = 0%), which was significantly lower than those assessed by V-VST or GUSS tests of 47.18% (95% CI: 38.30% to 56.14%, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Dysphagia is prevalent in the elderly, affecting approximately one in three community-dwelling elderly, almost half of the geriatric patients, and even more than half of elderly nursing home residents. The use of non-validated screening tools to report dysphagia underestimates its actual prevalence.
PubMed: 35566731
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092605 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Apr 2022Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) refers to any abnormality in the physiology of swallowing in the upper gastrointestinal tract, which leads to the related clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) refers to any abnormality in the physiology of swallowing in the upper gastrointestinal tract, which leads to the related clinical complications, such as malnutrition, dehydration, and sever complication, such as aspiration pneumonia, suffocation, and eventually, premature death. The previous studies indicated a various range of prevalence of OD. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to standardize the global prevalence of OD in different populations.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (WoS) databases, and Google Scholar motor engine using related MeSH/Emtree and Free Text words, with no time limitation until November 2021. The heterogeneity among studies was quantified using I index and the random effects model was used, due to the high heterogeneity among the results of studies included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The systematic literature search retrieved 2092 studies. After excluding the irrelevant studies, ultimately 27 articles with a sample size of 9841 were included in the meta-analysis. After combining the studies, the overall estimate of the global prevalence rate of OD was 43.8% (95% CI 33.3-54.9%) and the highest prevalence rate was estimated in Africa with 64.2% (95% CI 53.2-73.9%). Given the subgroup analysis based on the study population, the highest prevalence of OD was related to Dementia with 72.4% (95% CI 26.7-95.0%). The results of meta-regression indicated that the prevalence of OD has an increasing trend with the enhancement of year of publication and mean age.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of OD is high in different populations and its trend has been increasing in recent years. Therefore, the appropriate strategies should be applied to reduce the prevalence of OD by finding its causation and monitoring at all levels, as well as providing feedback to hospitals.
Topics: Africa; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Malnutrition; Prevalence
PubMed: 35410274
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03380-0 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
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 -
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