To date, no consensus exists on the complex clinical decision-making processes involved in oropharyngeal dysphagia, or swallowing disorders. This study aimed to develop an international consensus... Show moreTo date, no consensus exists on the complex clinical decision-making processes involved in oropharyngeal dysphagia, or swallowing disorders. This study aimed to develop an international consensus on a clinical decision tree for the disease trajectory of oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults, taking into account physiological impairments of swallowing, risk factors for the development of complications from oropharyngeal dysphagia, and prognostic factors for treatment outcomes. Using the Delphi technique, consensus was achieved among dysphagia experts across 31 countries, resulting in a total of 10 physiological impairments, 23 risk factors and 21 prognostic factors identified as relevant factors in the clinical decision-making process. Factors most contributing to the severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia were 'Aspiration', 'Incomplete ejection or failure to eject aspirated materials from the airways', 'Weak or absent cough', 'Choking' and 'Sensory deficits in the oropharynx'. To connect the existing theoretical framework to clinical practice, future research will develop the current findings by corroborating the domains based on relevant factors for clinical decision making and those that contribute to the severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Show less
Visuoperceptual evaluation of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a commonly used assessment in dysphagia or swallowing disorders. Currently, no international consensus exists... Show moreVisuoperceptual evaluation of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a commonly used assessment in dysphagia or swallowing disorders. Currently, no international consensus exists regarding which visuoperceptual measures to use for the analysis of FEES recordings. Moreover, existing visuoperceptual FEES measures are limited by poor and incomplete psychometric data, identifying an urgent need for developing a visuoperceptual measure to interpret FEES recordings. Following the COSMIN group's (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) psychometric taxonomy and guidelines, this study aimed to establish the content validity of a new visuoperceptual FEES (V-FEES) measure in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Using the Delphi technique, international consensus was achieved among dysphagia experts across 21 countries, resulting in a new prototype measure for V-FEES, comprising 30 items, 8 function testing items (i.e., specific tasks performed by patients while observing and rating items), and 36 unique operationalisations (i.e., defining items into measurable factors that could be measured empirically using visuoperceptual observation). This study supports good content validity for V-FEES, including participants' feedback on the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the included items. Future studies will continue the instrument development process and determine the remaining psychometric properties using both the classic test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) models. Show less
Introduction: Patient self-evaluation is an important aspect in the assessment of dysphagia and comprises both Functional Health Status (FHS) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). As many... Show moreIntroduction: Patient self-evaluation is an important aspect in the assessment of dysphagia and comprises both Functional Health Status (FHS) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). As many measures combine both FHS and HR-QoL, disease-related functioning cannot be distinguished from disease-related quality of life as experienced by the patient. Moreover, current patient self-reported measures are limited by poor and incomplete data on psychometric properties. Objective. This study aimed to establish content validity for the development of two new self-reported measures on FHS and HR-QoL in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), in line with the psychometric taxonomy and guidelines from the COSMIN group (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments). Methods. Using the Delphi technique, international expert consensus was achieved; participants and patients with dysphagia evaluated relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of definitions of relevant constructs (i.e., dysphagia, FHS and HR-QoL) and potential items. Results: A total of 66 Delphi participants from 45 countries achieved consensus across two rounds. The Delphi study resulted in two prototype measures, the Functional health status measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (FOD) and the health-related Quality of life measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (QOD), consisting of 37 and 25 items, respectively. Minimal revisions were required based on feedback by patients. Conclusions: This study provides evidence of good content validity for both newly developed prototype measures FOD and QOD. Future studies will continue the process of refining the measures, and evaluate the remaining psychometric properties using both Classic Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models. Show less
Speyer, R.; Cordier, R.; Sutt, A.L.; Remijn, L.; Heijnen, B.J.; Balaguer, M.; ... ; Bergstrom, L. 2022
Objective: To determine the effects of behavioural interventions in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled... Show moreObjective: To determine the effects of behavioural interventions in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials in four different databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of eligible articles was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), after which meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, a significant, large pre-post interventions effect size was found. To compare different types of interventions, all behavioural interventions and conventional dysphagia treatment comparison groups were categorised into compensatory, rehabilitative, and combined compensatory and rehabilitative interventions. Overall, significant treatment effects were identified favouring behavioural interventions. In particular, large effect sizes were found when comparing rehabilitative interventions with no dysphagia treatment, and combined interventions with compensatory conventional dysphagia treatment. When comparing selected interventions versus conventional dysphagia treatment, significant, large effect sizes were found in favour of Shaker exercise, chin tuck against resistance exercise, and expiratory muscle strength training. Conclusions: Behavioural interventions show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, due to high heterogeneity between studies, generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care. Show less
Objective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD).... Show moreObjective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Results. In total, 42 studies reporting on peripheral neurostimulation were included: 30 studies on NMES, eight studies on PES, and four studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. When conducting meta analyses, significant, large and significant, moderate pre-post treatment effects were found for NMES (11 studies) and PES (five studies), respectively. Between-group analyses showed small effect sizes in favour of NMES, but no significant effects for PES. Conclusions. NMES may have more promising effects compared to PES. However, NMES studies showed high heterogeneity in protocols and experimental variables, the presence of potential moderators, and inconsistent reporting of methodology. Therefore, only conservative generalisations and interpretation of meta-analyses could be made. To facilitate comparisons of studies and determine intervention effects, there is a need for more randomised controlled trials with larger population sizes, and greater standardisation of protocols and guidelines for reporting. Show less
Speyer, R.; Sutt, A.L.; Bergstroem, L.; Hamdy, S.; Pommee, T.; Balaguer, M.; ... ; Cordier, R. 2022
Objective. To assess the effects of brain neurostimulation (i.e., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]) in people with... Show moreObjective. To assess the effects of brain neurostimulation (i.e., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed) to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), the methodological quality of included studies was evaluated, after which meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results. In total, 24 studies reporting on brain neurostimulation were included: 11 studies on rTMS, 9 studies on tDCS, and 4 studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. Overall, within-group meta-analysis and between-group analysis for rTMS identified significant large and small effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. For tDCS, overall within-group analysis and between-group analysis identified significant large and moderate effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. Conclusion. Both rTMS and tDCS show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, comparisons between studies were challenging due to high heterogeneity in stimulation protocols and experimental parameters, potential moderators, and inconsistent methodological reporting. Generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care. Future research should include large RCTs using standard protocols and reporting guidelines as achieved by international consensus. Show less
