Dysphagia Screening Tools After Prolonged Intubation: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Revista Portuguesa de Enfermagem de Reabilitação
Azevedo, P., Saraiva, M., et al. (2023).
Revista Portuguesa de Enfermagem de Reabilitação, 6(1), 1-13.
This systematic review investigates validated screening tools for post-extubation dysphagia in individuals who have received at least 48 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation.
No funding received
This systematic review located only one screening tool. This unnamed tool is located within the following study: <br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #333333;">Johnson, K. L., Speirs, L., et al. (2018). Validation of a Postextubation Dysphagia Screening Tool for Patients After Prolonged Endotracheal Intubation. <em>American Journal of Critical Care, 27</em> (2), 89-96. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2018483">https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2018483</a></span></li>
</ul>
January 2012 to April 2022
Published, methodological studies of validation
1
<div>This review located only one screening tool validated in individuals with post-extubation dysphagia due to prolonged (i.e., at least 48 hours) invasive mechanical ventilation. This unnamed tool by Johnson et al. (2018) had the following psychometrics:</div>
<ul>
<li><strong>inter-observer reliability: </strong>k = 0.92;</li>
<li><strong>sensitivity</strong><strong>: </strong>81%;</li>
<li><strong>specificity:</strong> 69%;</li>
<li><strong>positive predictive value: </strong>77%; and</li>
<li><strong>negative predictive value: </strong>74%.</li>
</ul>
<p>This tool incorporated information about any prior assessment by speech-language pathologists, verification of the physician's diet prescription, and details about the patient's state of consciousness, respiratory status, and history of nasogastric intubation or gastrostomy. It was validated using 66 adult patients from four different medical-surgical intensive care units. Please see the Associated Article(s) section below for this study's full citation.<br><br>Limitations to this review include the overall lack of available research, a small sample size, and potential selection bias.</p>
