ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form - version II: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esophageal and Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: Clinical Recommendations From the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- What Combination of Generic Bedside Screening Tools Is Optimal to Capture Patients with Penetration/Aspiration Due to Dysphagia? Comparing Single Bedside Tools Versus Combinations of Tools for Sensitivity and Specificity.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Eating difficulties among Nigerian community-dwelling stroke survivors: prevalence, correlates, and association with quality of life.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Combined systematic screening for malnutrition and dysphagia in hospitalized older adults: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Minimal Eating Observation Form - Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form - II, the Volume - Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3).
resultsIn total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct.
conclusionsThe MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons' subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration.
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.