ArticleJournal of neurology2017
Clinical assessment of dysphagia in neurodegeneration (CADN): development, validity and reliability of a bedside tool for dysphagia assessment.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- A multinational consensus on dysphagia in Parkinson's disease: screening, diagnosis and prognostic value.Journal of neurology · 2022Review
- Characterization of Dysphagia and Longitudinal Changes in Swallowing Function in Adults with Niemann-Pick Disease Type C Treated with Miglustat.Dysphagia · 2021Article
- Parkinson's Disease and Current Treatments for Its Gastrointestinal Neurogastromotility Effects.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Coordination and timing deficits in speech and swallowing in autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS).Journal of neurology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening assessments for dysphagia are essential in neurodegenerative disease. Yet there are no purpose-built tools to quantify swallowing deficits at bedside or in clinical trials. A quantifiable, brief, easy to administer assessment that measures the impact of dysphagia and predicts the presence or absence of aspiration is needed. The Clinical Assessment of Dysphagia in Neurodegeneration (CADN) was designed by a multidisciplinary team (neurology, neuropsychology, speech pathology) validated against strict methodological criteria in two neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson's disease (PD) and degenerative ataxia (DA). CADN comprises two parts, an anamnesis (part one) and consumption (part two). Two-thirds of patients were assessed using reference tests, the SWAL-QOL symptoms subscale (part one) and videofluoroscopic assessment of swallowing (part two). CADN has 11 items and can be administered and scored in an average of 7 min. Test-retest reliability was established using correlation and Bland-Altman plots. 125 patients with a neurodegenerative disease were recruited; 60 PD and 65 DA. Validity was established using ROC graphs and correlations. CADN has sensitivity of 79 and 84% and specificity 71 and 69% for parts one and two, respectively. Significant correlations with disease severity were also observed (p < 0.001) for PD with small to large associations between disease severity and CADN scores for DA. Cutoff scores were identified that signal the presence of clinically meaningful dysphagia symptomatology and risk of aspiration. The CADN is a reliable, valid, brief, quantifiable, and easily deployed assessment of swallowing in neurodegenerative disease. It is thus ideally suited for both clinical bedside assessment and future multicentre clinical trials in neurodegenerative disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.