ArticleHealth science reports2018
Development and evaluation of screening dysphagia tools for observational studies and routine care in cancer patients.
Article in Health science reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of screening dysphagia tools for observational studies and routine care in cancer patients.Health science reports · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsDysphagia can be associated with significant morbidity in cancer patients. We aimed to develop and evaluate dysphagia screener tools for use in observational studies (phase 1) and for routine symptom monitoring in clinical care (phase 2).
methodsVarious dysphagia or odynophagia screening questions, selected after an expert panel reviewed the content, criterion, and construct validity, were compared with either functional assessment of cancer therapy - esophageal cancer (FACT-E) Swallowing Index Cut-Off Values or to questions adapted from the Patient Reported Outcomes for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Sensitivity, specificity, and patient acceptability were assessed.
resultsIn Phase 1 (n = 178 esophageal cancer patients), the screening question "How are you currently eating?" had the highest sensitivities and specificities against various Swallowing Index Cut-Off Value cut-offs, with the best optimal cutoff associated with weight loss (80% sensitivity and 75% specificity). In phase 2 (255 head and neck, gastro-esophageal, and thoracic cancer patients), a single question screener ("Do you experience any difficulty or pain upon swallowing?") versus a Patient Reported Outcomes for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-like gold standard generated sensitivities between 86% and 94% and specificities between 93% and 100%. This screening question (+/- follow-up questions) had a median completion time of under 2 minutes, and >90% of patients were willing to complete the survey electronically, did not feel that survey made clinic visit more difficult, and did not find the questions upsetting or distressful.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that these screener tools ("How are you currently eating?", "Do you experience any difficulty or pain upon swallowing?") can effectively screen dysphagia symptoms without increasing cancer outpatient clinic burden, both in observational studies and for routine clinical monitoring.
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.