Clinical feeding assessment: An effective screening test to predict aspiration in children in low resource settings.

IF 0.8 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/PRM-220052
Vijeyta Dahiya, Naina Picardo, Ramanadham Thejesh, Mary John, Ajoy Mathew Varghese
{"title":"Clinical feeding assessment: An effective screening test to predict aspiration in children in low resource settings.","authors":"Vijeyta Dahiya, Naina Picardo, Ramanadham Thejesh, Mary John, Ajoy Mathew Varghese","doi":"10.3233/PRM-220052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Diagnosis and management of swallowing problems in children is crucial for improvement of their health status and quality of life. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of clinical feeding assessment (CFA) as a screening test to detect aspiration in children using fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective study of 80 children aged below 16 years who were referred to a paediatric otolaryngology clinic for swallowing complaints was completed from 2019 to 2020. Swallowing was assessed by both CFA and FEES. Presence of any one of the following symptoms was considered positive for aspiration in CFA: cough, wet vocal quality, and respiratory distress. Aspiration on FEES was measured using the Penetration Aspiration Scale. The clinical predictors of aspiration were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the children (78.8%) had an associated neurological condition, with cerebral palsy being the most common. CFA had a sensitivity ranging from 80% to 100% and a specificity ranging from 68% to 79% for predicting true aspiration for different food consistencies. The significant risk factors predicting aspiration (p value <0.05) were history of prior intubation (p = 0.009), history of nasal regurgitation (p = 0.002) and spasticity on examination (p = 0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that CFA can be used as a screening test in evaluation of paediatric dysphagia. In those with negative CFA, the chances of aspiration are less while those with positive CFA need further evaluation. In addition, the availability and cost-effectiveness of the test make it a good tool for screening aspiration in low-resource settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11307002/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-220052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Diagnosis and management of swallowing problems in children is crucial for improvement of their health status and quality of life. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of clinical feeding assessment (CFA) as a screening test to detect aspiration in children using fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) as the gold standard.

Methods: A prospective study of 80 children aged below 16 years who were referred to a paediatric otolaryngology clinic for swallowing complaints was completed from 2019 to 2020. Swallowing was assessed by both CFA and FEES. Presence of any one of the following symptoms was considered positive for aspiration in CFA: cough, wet vocal quality, and respiratory distress. Aspiration on FEES was measured using the Penetration Aspiration Scale. The clinical predictors of aspiration were analysed.

Results: The majority of the children (78.8%) had an associated neurological condition, with cerebral palsy being the most common. CFA had a sensitivity ranging from 80% to 100% and a specificity ranging from 68% to 79% for predicting true aspiration for different food consistencies. The significant risk factors predicting aspiration (p value <0.05) were history of prior intubation (p = 0.009), history of nasal regurgitation (p = 0.002) and spasticity on examination (p = 0.043).

Conclusion: This study showed that CFA can be used as a screening test in evaluation of paediatric dysphagia. In those with negative CFA, the chances of aspiration are less while those with positive CFA need further evaluation. In addition, the availability and cost-effectiveness of the test make it a good tool for screening aspiration in low-resource settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床喂养评估:在资源匮乏的环境中预测儿童误吸的有效筛查测试。
目的:儿童吞咽问题的诊断和治疗对改善他们的健康状况和生活质量至关重要。本研究旨在确定临床进食评估(CFA)的准确性,该评估是一种筛查测试,以检测儿童的误吸,使用光纤内窥镜吞咽评估(FEES)作为金标准。方法:2019年至2020年,完成了一项针对80名16岁以下儿童的前瞻性研究,这些儿童因吞咽问题被转诊至儿科耳鼻喉科诊所。吞咽通过CFA和FEES进行评估。在CFA中,出现以下任何一种症状都被认为是吸入阳性:咳嗽、声音潮湿和呼吸窘迫。FEES上的吸气量使用渗透吸气量表进行测量。分析了误吸的临床预测因素。结果:大多数儿童(78.8%)有相关的神经系统疾病,其中脑瘫最为常见。CFA在预测不同食物稠度的真实抽吸时的灵敏度在80%至100%之间,特异性在68%至79%之间。预测误吸的重要危险因素(p值结论:本研究表明,CFA可作为评估儿童吞咽困难的筛查测试。在CFA阴性的患者中,误吸的机会较小,而CFA阳性的患者需要进一步评估。此外,该测试的可用性和成本效益使其成为在低资源环境中筛查误吸的良好工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
139
期刊最新文献
A confounding pediatric spinal cord injury: Anterior, central, or both? Does diagnosis matter? Evaluating impact of pediatric chronic pain diagnosis on pain and function. New-onset hydrocephalus in an adult with cerebral palsy: A case report and review of the literature. Caregiver and student perspectives on school services for students with traumatic brain injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. Review of Appetite for Risk-What it is, Who has it and How I survived, by Robert R. Abbott.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1