Premium
Accuracy and clinical utility of comprehensive dysphagia screening assessments in acute stroke: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Benfield Jacqueline K.,
Everton Lisa F.,
Bath Philip M.,
England Timothy J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/jocn.15192
Subject(s) - dysphagia , medicine , swallowing , medline , stroke (engine) , meta analysis , test (biology) , physical therapy , systematic review , acute stroke , emergency medicine , intensive care medicine , surgery , mechanical engineering , paleontology , political science , law , biology , engineering , tissue plasminogen activator
Nurses and other nonspecialists in dysphagia are often trained to screen swallowing poststroke. There are many basic tools that test water only, they are usually conservative, and patients that fail the test remain nil by mouth until a speech and language therapy assessment. More comprehensive tests also allow nonspecialists to recommend modified oral intake. Little is known about the accuracy, clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness of these tests. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to describe comprehensive swallowing tests that are available for use in acute stroke by nurses or other nonspecialists in dysphagia. A meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate accuracy and the clinical utility of the tests was considered. Searches and analyses, conducted by two reviewers, included MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and grey literature up to December 2018. Validated studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using QUADAS‐2. Results Twenty studies were included, describing five different tests, three of which had undergone validation. The tests varied in content, recommendations and use. There was no test superior in accuracy and clinical utility. Three studies validating the Gugging Swallow Screen provided sufficient data for meta‐analysis, demonstrating high sensitivity; 96% (95% CI 0.90–0.99), but low specificity, 65% (95% CI 0.47–0.79), in line with many water swallow tests. Results should be interpreted with caution as study quality and applicability to the acute stroke population was poor. Conclusions There is no comprehensive nurse dysphagia assessment tool that has robustly demonstrated good accuracy, clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness in acute stroke. Relevance to Clinical Practice Nurses and other clinicians can develop competencies in screening swallowing and assessing for safe oral intake in those with poststroke dysphagia. It is important to use a validated assessment tool that demonstrates good accuracy, clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness.