Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27530728›Full record

SynthesisDysphagia2016

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Modified Evan's Blue Dye Test in Detecting Aspiration in Patients with Tracheostomy: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Sibylle Béchet, Fiona Hill, Órla Gilheaney, Margaret Walshe

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sibylle BéchetDepartment of Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 7-9 South Leinster Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. bechets@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-5018-9903
Fiona HillDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 22, Ireland.
Órla GilheaneyDepartment of Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 7-9 South Leinster Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Margaret WalsheDepartment of Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 7-9 South Leinster Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Trinity College Dublin · IETallaght University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oropharyngeal aspiration (OPA) is a common occurrence in patients with tracheostomy. The modified Evan's blue dye test (MEBDT) is an easily administered bedside procedure for the assessment of tracheostomised patients. However, studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the MEBDT reach conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to determine the overall accuracy of the MEBDT in detecting OPA in adults with tracheostomy. The search strategy incorporated searching electronic databases, checking reference lists and citations and retrieving unpublished data. Data of primary studies were extracted and examined by three independent reviewers. The assessment of the methodological quality of included studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The studies presented significant disparities in study design and patient characteristics. Furthermore, high discrepancies in the administration of MEBDT across studies were noted. Therefore, a meta-analysis was not considered appropriate. Sensitivity estimates varied widely across the studies (38-95 %), indicating that the MEBDT is unreliable in detecting OPA. However, the studies emerge with overall high specificity values, ranging from 79 to 100 %. This true negative rate suggests that the MEBDT correctly identifies patients without OPA. This review highlights the need for further research studies assessing the accuracy of the MEBDT in detecting aspiration in patients with tracheostomy, using a standardised and reliable procedure. Outcomes from such studies will update the current level of evidence in relation to the MEBDT and consequently define best clinical practice.

Indexed as

Coloring AgentsEvans BlueFalse Negative ReactionsHumansReproducibility of ResultsRespiratory AspirationSensitivity and SpecificityTracheotomyColoring AgentsEvans BlueDeglutition disordersDiagnostic accuracyModified Evan’s blue dye testOropharyngeal aspirationTracheostomy

Identifiers

PMID27530728
OpenAlexW2509077763

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.