International journal of speech-language pathology · 2024
Safety-related outcomes for patients with a tracheostomy and the use of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) for assessment and management of swallowing: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Morris Katherine, Taylor Nicholas F, Freeman-Sanderson Amy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine safety-related outcomes for patients with tracheostomy after flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to assess and manage their swallow, when compared to other non-instrumental swallow assessments such as clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and/or a modified Evans blue dye test (MEBDT).
METHOD: Three databases were searched for articles referring to safety-related outcome data for adults with a tracheostomy, who underwent FEES and CSE and/or MEBDT. Articles were screened using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULT: The search strategy identified 2097 articles; following abstract and full-text screening, seven were included for review. The summary of evidence found low to very low certainty that FEES was associated with improved outcomes across swallow safety, physiological outcomes, tracheostomy cannulation duration, functional outcomes, and detection of upper airway pathologies.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrated low to very low certainty evidence from seven heterogeneous studies with low sample sizes that incorporating FEES may be associated with improved safety-related outcomes. There is less evidence supporting the accuracy of other swallow assessments conducted at the point of care (i.e. CSE and MEBDT). Future research requires studies with larger sample sizes and routine reporting of safety-related outcomes with use of FEES.
METHOD: Three databases were searched for articles referring to safety-related outcome data for adults with a tracheostomy, who underwent FEES and CSE and/or MEBDT. Articles were screened using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULT: The search strategy identified 2097 articles; following abstract and full-text screening, seven were included for review. The summary of evidence found low to very low certainty that FEES was associated with improved outcomes across swallow safety, physiological outcomes, tracheostomy cannulation duration, functional outcomes, and detection of upper airway pathologies.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrated low to very low certainty evidence from seven heterogeneous studies with low sample sizes that incorporating FEES may be associated with improved safety-related outcomes. There is less evidence supporting the accuracy of other swallow assessments conducted at the point of care (i.e. CSE and MEBDT). Future research requires studies with larger sample sizes and routine reporting of safety-related outcomes with use of FEES.