Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35660987›Full record

Trial reportNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022

Accuracy of Dysphagia Standard Assessment (DSA®) bedside screening test: a flowchart for patient eligibility.

Laura Mariani, Armando Cilfone, Maria Nicastri, Lucia Libera Pipitone, Federica Stella, Marco de Vincentiis, Antonio Greco, Patrizia Mancini, Lucia Longo, Giovanni Ruoppolo

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura MarianiDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy. laura.mariani@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6288-8373
Armando CilfoneDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Maria NicastriDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Lucia Libera PipitoneDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Federica StellaDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Marco de VincentiisDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Antonio GrecoDepartment of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Patrizia Mancini *Department of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Lucia Longo *Department of Sense Organs, Otorhinolaryngology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale dell'Università, 33, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Ruoppolo *I.R.C.C.S. San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) screening tests have improved patient management; however, the complex applicability and high percentage of false negatives do not allow these tests to be considered completely reliable if not supported by an instrumental investigation. The aim of the present study is to evaluate an OD screening test, the Dysphagia Standard Assessment (DSA®) with different volumes and viscosities. MATERIALS AND

methodsProspective study of 72 patients evaluated for suspected OD through a double-blind methodology conducted by two operators. All patients underwent fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) as a reference test and a separate DSA® test. DSA® was performed by administering boluses with different viscosities, with the signal of interruption of the test being: onset of the cough reflex, wet voice after swallowing, and/or desaturation of O2 ≥ 5%. The Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) was evaluated by FEES. The cut-off identified to diagnose OD was PAS ≥ 3.

resultsThe test showed an accuracy of 82%, a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% C.I. 0.84-0.97), and a specificity of 0.78 (95% C.I. 0.67-0.87); positive predictive value 0.55 (95% C.I. 0.43-0.67); negative predictive value 0.97 (95% C.I. 0.90-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 4.37 (95% C.I. 3.6-5.2); likelihood negative ratio 0.08 (95% C.I. 0.06-0.09).

conclusionsAccording to the preliminary results, the test showed good outcomes in determining the presence or absence of OD with a wide spectrum of applicability with some limitations that could be overcome by the selection of a target population. For this reason, a flowchart to address patient eligibility was developed.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersDeglutitionHumansPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesSoftware DesignDeglutition disordersFEESNutritionOropharyngeal dysphagiaScreeningSwallowing

Identifiers

PMID35660987
PMCPMC9385749
OpenAlexW4281932960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.