Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27405423›Full record

ArticleDysphagia2016

Implications of Variability in Clinical Bedside Swallowing Assessment Practices by Speech Language Pathologists.

Sue McAllister, Samantha Kruger, Sebastian Doeltgen, Emma Tyler-Boltrek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dysphagia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Contextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultation.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021
    Article
  10. Decision making and the bedside assessment: The Speech Language Therapists' thinking when making a diagnosis at the bed.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sue McAllisterSpeech Pathology, School of Health Sciences, Flinders University of South Australia, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. sue.mcallister@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1597-0563
Samantha KrugerSpeech Pathology and Audiology, Flinders Medical Centre, Southern Area Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Sebastian DoeltgenSpeech Pathology, School of Health Sciences, Flinders University of South Australia, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Emma Tyler-BoltrekSpeech Pathology and Audiology, Flinders Medical Centre, Southern Area Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech language pathology (SLP) clinical bedside swallowing assessments (CBSA) are a cornerstone of quality care for patients in acute hospitals who have dysphagia. The CBSA informs clinical diagnosis and decisions regarding further instrumental assessment, and is used to develop a management plan and monitor progress. However, self-report and retrospective research shows that SLPs are highly variable in their use of assessment components considered by experts to be important for quality CBSA, casting doubt on the validity and reliability of CBSA. This prospective study describes the components included by SLPs when designing a standardised evidence based dysphagia assessment protocol for acute care patients and observed patterns of component use. The findings confirm that SLPs use the CBSA for multiple purposes beyond diagnosis of aspiration risk and dysphagia presence/severity. They are highly variable in their use of certain components, but also demonstrate consistent use of a core set. It is apparent that SLPs prioritise the application of clinical reasoning to tailor their CBSA to the patient over following a highly structured item-based protocol. The variability in component use likely reflects a complex clinical reasoning process that draws on a wide variety of information combined with expert knowledge as is also observed in many other medical specialties. Rather than promoting the standardisation of CBSA protocols that constrain SLP practice to strict item-based assessment protocols, consideration should be given to promoting the value and facilitating the clinical reasoning process that supports the utility of the CBSA for diagnosis, patient centred management and treatment planning.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overClinical Decision-MakingDeglutitionDeglutition DisordersFemaleHumansMalePoint-of-Care TestingProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSpeech-Language PathologySymptom AssessmentClinical bedside assessmentClinical reasoningDeglutitionDeglutition disordersDysphagiaValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.