ArticleScientific reports2024
The Arabic EAT-10 and FEES in dysphagia screening among cancer patients: a comparative prospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head and neck cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, have diverse effects on patients, leading to dysphagia as a significant post-treatment issue. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Arabic version of the EAT-10 screening instrument (A-EAT-10) using Fiber-Optic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) as an imperfect gold standard. Additionally, we seek to establish a correlation between A-EAT-10 and PEG tube insertion in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Our sample comprised 130 head and neck cancer patients with varying cancer types at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). We followed these patients throughout their distinct treatment plans up to one month after their final treatment session. During follow-up visits, we administered the A-Eat-10 instrument to monitor dysphagia. FEES were conducted at the initial and concluding visits to compare results with A-EAT-10 scores. The results in our tests, assuming independence or dependence, demonstrated excellent agreement. A-EAT-10 exhibited outstanding predictive capabilities with an AUC ranging from 93 to 97%. A-EAT-10 tended to slightly overestimate dysphagia at later treatment stages by approximately 20% compared to FEES, with an RR of 1.2 (95% CI 0.91, 1.56, p-value = 0.21), indicating statistical insignificance. In conclusion, A-EAT-10 is an excellent option for dysphagia evaluation, offering non-invasive, straightforward, and cost-effective advantages compared to FEES. Its utility extends to predicting the need for PEG tube insertion at initial patient visits, making it a valuable tool for informed treatment decisions. Notably, A-EAT-10 demonstrates a diminishing correlation with FEES over time.
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.