Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592082›Full record

ReviewEuropean 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 Surgery2023

Evaluation of outcome measures for post-operative dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Wasef Nijim, J Harrison Cowart, Christopher Banerjee, Gregory Postma, Michel Paré

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Wasef NijimMedical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA. wnijim@augusta.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6496-3648
J Harrison CowartDepartment of Neurosurgery, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Christopher BanerjeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gregory PostmaDepartment of Otolaryngology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.
Michel ParéDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal is to conduct a review of the current literature to determine and evaluate the current classification metrics available for quantifying post-operative dysphagia.

methodsWe surveyed the literature for the subjective and objective measures used to classify dysphagia, and further described and analyzed them in the context of post-operative dysphagia (PD) after anterior cervical spine surgery, with a focus on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We searched PubMed from the years 2005-2021 using the terms "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" and "dysphagia or postoperative dysphagia." We included papers that were meta-analyses, systemic reviews, prospective, or retrospective studies. Our selection was further consolidated via abstract and title screening. Ultimately, nineteen articles were included and had full-text reviews.

resultsEAT-10 tool was shown to be more valid and reliable than the commonly used Bazaz grading system. HSS-DDI was found to have a high diagnostic accuracy in stratifying mild, moderate, and severe PD. A shortened 16-item version of the original 44-item SWAL-QOL was found to be statistically and clinically significant. When compared to PROMs, objective tests more accurately diagnose PD.

conclusionWe found that the most valuable subjective tests were the EAT-10 and HSS-DI because they are quick, sensitive, and correlated strongly with the well-established measurements of PD. The MBS and FEES provided accurate measurements of the severity of PD, but they required more time and equipment than the surveys. In some patient populations, such as those with pre-surgical dysphagia, objective testing should always be done.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersSpinal FusionCervical VertebraeDiskectomyHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeACDFAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionDysphagiaObjective dysphagia scalesPatient reported outcome measures (PROM)Post-operative dysphagiaSubjective dysphagia scales

Identifiers

PMID37592082

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.