ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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.
- Efficacy of High-Intensity Training in Patients with Moderate to Severe Dysphagia after Glossectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of the study was the language adaptation and verification of psychometric properties of the Slovak version of the EAT10® questionnaire. Methods: The original English version of the questionnaire was translated into the Slovak language. The research group included 136 control participants and 51 dysphagic patients. Test−retest reliability, item analysis, internal consistency, construct and clinical validity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to verify the psychometric properties of the Slovak EAT10®. Results: The internal consistency assessed with Cronbach’s alpha is excellent (α = 0.94). Statistical analysis of the Slovak version of EAT10® showed excellent reliability (0.91, p < 0.001) in the test−retest. Through item-to-total correlation, we found out that all items significantly correlated with the overall score in EAT10®. Factor analysis proved a high construct validity. The EAT10® questionnaire was able to reveal a latent variable: a swallowing disorder, which was affecting a group of patients. The clinical validity results confirmed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the control and dysphagic groups (z = −10.30; p < 0.001). By dividing the dysphagic group into four subgroups (Head and Neck Cancer, Extraesophageal Reflux, Iatrogenic, and Neurological) there were nonsignificant differences in the mean scores of the subgroups. The cut-off value for the Slovak EAT10® is three points. Conclusion: The Slovak EAT10® is a valid and reliable tool designed for the subjective assessment of oropharyngeal dysphagia in patients.
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.