Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2024
Cervical Auscultation for Detecting Oropharyngeal Aspiration in Paediatric and Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cron Annelise C, David Michael, Orbell-Smith Jane, Chang Anne B, Weir Kelly A, Frakking Thuy T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cervical auscultation (CA) involves listening to swallowing and respiratory sounds and/or vibrations to detect oropharyngeal aspiration (OPA). CA has shown promising diagnostic test accuracy when used with the clinical swallowing examination and is gaining popularity in clinical practise. There has not been a review to date analysing the accuracy of CA in paediatric and adult populations with meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of CA in detecting OPA in paediatric and adult populations, when compared to instrumental assessments.
SEARCH METHODS: Databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AustHealth, Cochrane and Web of Science. The search was restricted between 01 October 2012 and 01 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria included (a) all clinical populations of all ages, (b) who have had an instrumental assessment and (c) CA. All study types were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were reviewed independently by two authors. The methodological quality of the studies was analysed using the QUADAS-2.
MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for this review and meta-analyses. The pooled diagnostic performance of CA in detecting OPA was 0.91 for sensitivity and 0.79 for specificity. The area under the curve summary receiver operating curve (sROC) was estimated to be 0.86, thereby indicating good discrimination of OPA. Most studies scored high for risk of bias in at least one domain in the QUADAS-2, likely attributed to a lack of high-quality prospectively designed studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There are promising diagnostic test accuracies for the use of CA in detection of OPA. Future research could include using CA in specific clinical populations and settings, and identifying standardised criteria for CA.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of CA in detecting OPA in paediatric and adult populations, when compared to instrumental assessments.
SEARCH METHODS: Databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AustHealth, Cochrane and Web of Science. The search was restricted between 01 October 2012 and 01 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria included (a) all clinical populations of all ages, (b) who have had an instrumental assessment and (c) CA. All study types were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were reviewed independently by two authors. The methodological quality of the studies was analysed using the QUADAS-2.
MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for this review and meta-analyses. The pooled diagnostic performance of CA in detecting OPA was 0.91 for sensitivity and 0.79 for specificity. The area under the curve summary receiver operating curve (sROC) was estimated to be 0.86, thereby indicating good discrimination of OPA. Most studies scored high for risk of bias in at least one domain in the QUADAS-2, likely attributed to a lack of high-quality prospectively designed studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There are promising diagnostic test accuracies for the use of CA in detection of OPA. Future research could include using CA in specific clinical populations and settings, and identifying standardised criteria for CA.