Cargando…

Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES

This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogeni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jaghbeer, Mariam, Sutt, Anna-Liisa, Bergström, Liza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9873722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35838785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00455-022-10468-8
_version_ 1784877659066466304
author Jaghbeer, Mariam
Sutt, Anna-Liisa
Bergström, Liza
author_facet Jaghbeer, Mariam
Sutt, Anna-Liisa
Bergström, Liza
author_sort Jaghbeer, Mariam
collection PubMed
description This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (r(s) [Formula: see text] 0.62) with FEES. A difference across bolus viscosities identified that CA sensitivities (90.1%) and specificities ([Formula: see text] 84.7%) for thin liquids were greater than for thick liquids (71.0–77.4% sensitivities, 74.0–81.3% specificities). Results demonstrate high validity and moderate-good reliability of CA-trained SLPs to determine swallow safety when compared with FEES. Data support the use of CA as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination. CA should include pre-post respiratory sounds and requires specific training. Clinical implications: The authors advocate for holistic dysphagia management including instrumental assessment and ongoing CSE/review [Formula: see text] CA. Adding CA to the CSE/review does not replace instrumental assessment, nor should CA be used as a stand-alone tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00455-022-10468-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9873722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98737222023-01-26 Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES Jaghbeer, Mariam Sutt, Anna-Liisa Bergström, Liza Dysphagia Original Article This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (r(s) [Formula: see text] 0.62) with FEES. A difference across bolus viscosities identified that CA sensitivities (90.1%) and specificities ([Formula: see text] 84.7%) for thin liquids were greater than for thick liquids (71.0–77.4% sensitivities, 74.0–81.3% specificities). Results demonstrate high validity and moderate-good reliability of CA-trained SLPs to determine swallow safety when compared with FEES. Data support the use of CA as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination. CA should include pre-post respiratory sounds and requires specific training. Clinical implications: The authors advocate for holistic dysphagia management including instrumental assessment and ongoing CSE/review [Formula: see text] CA. Adding CA to the CSE/review does not replace instrumental assessment, nor should CA be used as a stand-alone tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00455-022-10468-8. Springer US 2022-07-15 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9873722/ /pubmed/35838785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00455-022-10468-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Jaghbeer, Mariam
Sutt, Anna-Liisa
Bergström, Liza
Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title_full Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title_fullStr Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title_full_unstemmed Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title_short Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES
title_sort dysphagia management and cervical auscultation: reliability and validity against fees
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9873722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35838785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00455-022-10468-8
work_keys_str_mv AT jaghbeermariam dysphagiamanagementandcervicalauscultationreliabilityandvalidityagainstfees
AT suttannaliisa dysphagiamanagementandcervicalauscultationreliabilityandvalidityagainstfees
AT bergstromliza dysphagiamanagementandcervicalauscultationreliabilityandvalidityagainstfees