SynthesisPloS one2026
Evaluation of the diagnostic value of the Modified Evan's Blue Dye Test for assessing aspiration in tracheostomized critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysphagia and aspiration are common complications in tracheostomized critically ill patients. The Modified Evan's Blue Dye Test (MEBDT) is a non-invasive, bedside, adjunctive rule-in signal for aspiration when positive. However, its diagnostic accuracy compared to the gold standard Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) in these patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the MEBDT for the detection of aspiration in tracheostomized critically ill patients. Study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD:42023479920). A systematic search was performed across three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Embase), followed by a systematic screening process against predetermined selection criteria and included studies that provided data on the sensitivity and specificity of MEBDT versus FEES. The risk of bias and the level of evidence certainty in the included papers were assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool and GRADE approach respectively. Six out of 2227 screened studies were included. We found that MEBDT had a high specificity 95.42% (95% CI [67.38%, 99.53%]) and positive predictive value 95% (95% CI [81, 100]). In conclusion, the MEBDT can serve as a bedside adjunctive tool that indicates a potential aspiration risk when the result is positive. However, if the result is negative, further diagnostic assessments, like FEES, are recommended for high-risk 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.