Swallowing Screening: Purposefully Different From an Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity Related to Clinical Yield, Interprofessional Roles, and Patient Selection

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability in Belgian Acute Stroke Patients Based on a 1-Year Follow-Up Study

INTRODUCTION

The Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) is a standardized clinical swallowing examination, specifically developed as a diagnostic test for the presence of oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration in the early period after stroke onset. In the original validation study, cutoff scores of <178 and <170 points, respectively, for the identification of dysphagia and aspiration risk are reported. However, a literature search revealed that alternative cutoff scores for dysphagia and/or aspiration provide better diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this secondary data analysis study was to evaluate the concurrent and predictive validity of the MASA.

METHODS

Data were derived from a Belgian cohort study of an acute stroke population (n = 151). The MASA total score (MASA-TS), which is the sum of weighted scores on the 24 items, was evaluated against the Fiberoptic Endoscopic Dysphagia Severity Scale (FEDSS) to assess concurrent validity. To assess predictive validity of the MASA-TS, pneumonia during hospitalization and over 1 year and mortality acted as a future criterion. Analyses included receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of the MASA-TS was good for dysphagia (AUC = 0.85) and for the presence of relevant aspiration risk (AUC = 0.84). Using the original cutoff scores, the MASA-TS showed perfect sensitivity (Se = 1.00) for the identification of dysphagia and aspiration but inadequate specificity (Sp) for dysphagia (Sp = 0.16) and aspiration (Sp = 0.43). After determining new MASA cutoff scores, the optimal MASA cutoff scores were ≤146 for both dysphagia and aspiration with adequate thresholds (Se = 0.71 and Sp = 0.81 for dysphagia; Se = 0.73 and Sp = 0.80 for aspiration). The MASA-TS was a significant predictor of pneumonia during hospitalization (AUC = 0.85) and 1-year follow-up (AUC = 0.86), and of mortality (AUC = 0.79).

CONCLUSION

The MASA-TS showed good concurrent validity with the FEDSS. Furthermore, using new cutoff scores (≤146 for the identification of dysphagia and aspiration) lead in general to more accurate diagnostic indexes. The MASA-TS is a good predictor of aspiration pneumonia during hospitalization and 1-year follow-up and of mortality.

Computer-aided screening of aspiration risks in dysphagia with wearable technology: a Systematic Review and meta-analysis on test accuracy

Aspiration caused by dysphagia is a prevalent problem that causes serious health consequences and even death. Traditional diagnostic instruments could induce pain, discomfort, nausea, and radiation exposure. The emergence of wearable technology with computer-aided screening might facilitate continuous or frequent assessments to prompt early and effective management. The objectives of this review are to summarize these systems to identify aspiration risks in dysphagic individuals and inquire about their accuracy. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including CINAHL, Embase, IEEE Xplore^® Digital Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (PROSPERO reference number: CRD42023408960). The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Nine (n = 9) articles applied accelerometers and/or acoustic devices to identify aspiration risks in patients with neurodegenerative problems (e.g., dementia, Alzheimer's disease), neurogenic problems (e.g., stroke, brain injury), in addition to some children with congenital abnormalities, using videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) or fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) as the reference standard. All studies employed a traditional machine learning approach with a feature extraction process. Support vector machine (SVM) was the most famous machine learning model used. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the classification accuracy and identify risky swallows. Nevertheless, we decided not to conclude the meta-analysis findings (pooled diagnostic odds ratio: 21.5, 95% CI, 2.7-173.6) because studies had unique methodological characteristics and major differences in the set of parameters/thresholds, in addition to the substantial heterogeneity and variations, with sensitivity levels ranging from 21.7% to 90.0% between studies. Small sample sizes could be a critical problem in existing studies (median = 34.5, range 18-449), especially for machine learning models. Only two out of the nine studies had an optimized model with sensitivity over 90%. There is a need to enlarge the sample size for better generalizability and optimize signal processing, segmentation, feature extraction, classifiers, and their combinations to improve the assessment performance. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023408960).

A Decision Guide for Assessing the Recently Extubated Patient's Readiness for Safe Oral Intake

BACKGROUND

Postextubation dysphagia is a known consequence of endotracheal intubation. Several risk factors for postextubation dysphagia have been identified that could be used to help determine which patients should undergo swallowing assessment by an appropriate professional.

LOCAL PROBLEM

At the authors' institution, critical care nurses, health care providers, and speech-language pathology professionals lacked a clear process for referring patients for swallowing assessment after extubation, resulting in inefficiency and confusion. Information to guide their decision-making in this area was needed. To address this need, a multidisciplinary group convened and developed a guide with specific indicators.

METHODS

A review of the literature on postextubation dysphagia was conducted to determine the most appropriate indicators for the guide, which was piloted in the medical intensive care unit. The utilization rate was calculated. Referrals to speech-language pathology professionals were tabulated before and after the project.

RESULTS

During the 11 months before implementation of the project, there were 994 speech-language pathology consultations for postextubation evaluation of swallowing. During the 11 months after implementation, there were 831 consultations, representing a 16.4% reduction. The decline in consultations resulted in cost savings in addition to preventing unnecessary testing before patients' resumption of oral intake. The utilization rate for the guide during the project was 58%.

CONCLUSION

The decision guide was an effective tool to help nurses and health care providers determine which patients should be referred to speech-language pathology professionals for swallowing assessment after extubation, facilitating the appropriate use of limited health care resources.

Creation and Initial Validation of the Caregiver Analysis of Reported Experiences with Swallowing Disorders (CARES) Screening Tool

Purpose Dysphagia is a debilitating condition with widespread consequences. Previous research has revealed dysphagia to be an independent predictor of caregiver burden. However, there is currently no systematic method of screening for or identifying dysphagia-related caregiver burden. The aim of this study was to develop a set of questions for a dysphagia-related caregiver burden screening tool, the Caregiver Analysis of Reported Experiences with Swallowing Disorders (CARES), and pilot the tool to establish preliminary validity and reliability. Method The questionnaire was developed through an iterative process by a team of clinical researchers with expertise in dysphagia, dysphagia-related and general caregiver burden, and questionnaire design. A heterogenous group of 26 family caregivers of people with dysphagia completed the CARES, along with the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale (IDDSI-FDS), and the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Information on construct validity, item fit, convergent validity, internal consistency, and reliability was determined via Rasch analysis model testing, Cronbach's alpha, and Spearman's rho calculations. Results The final CARES questionnaire contained 26 items divided across two subscales. The majority of the questionnaire items fit the model, there was evidence of internal consistency across both subscales, and there were significant relationships between dysphagia-specific burden (CARES) and perceived swallowing impairment (EAT-10), general caregiver burden (ZBI), and diet restrictiveness (IDDSI-FDS). Conclusions Results from the current study provide initial support for the validity and reliability of the CARES as a screening tool for dysphagia-related burden, particularly among caregivers of adults with swallowing difficulties. While continued testing is needed across larger groups of specific patient populations, it is clear that the CARES can initiate structured conversations about dysphagia-related caregiver burden by identifying potential sources of stress and/or contention. This will allow clinicians to then identify concrete methods of reducing burden and make appropriate referrals, ultimately improving patient care.