舌位仪的标准(并发)有效性和临床实用性。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Pub Date : 2024-07-03 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00478
Brittany N Krekeler, Anna Hopkins, Meredith E Tabangin, Mekibib Altaye, Rachel Roberts, Raneh Saadi, Bonnie Martin-Harris, Nicole Rogus-Pulia
{"title":"舌位仪的标准(并发)有效性和临床实用性。","authors":"Brittany N Krekeler, Anna Hopkins, Meredith E Tabangin, Mekibib Altaye, Rachel Roberts, Raneh Saadi, Bonnie Martin-Harris, Nicole Rogus-Pulia","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Tongue manometry (i.e., tongue pressure measurement) is a commonly used assessment for patients with suspected oral-motor involvement in swallowing disorders. Availability of lingual manometry has changed in recent years, with the introduction of the Tongueometer device being a more affordable tongue manometry system. The purpose of this study was to test concurrent (criterion) validity of the Tongueometer compared to the current standard reference device, the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Adults without dysphagia were recruited for participation in this study. Standard lingual measurements (swallowing-related pressures, maximum isometric pressure [MIP], and maximum isometric endurance) were recorded, with the bulb anteriorly placed, with both devices, in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine concurrent (criterion) validity of these measurements compared to the clinical standard IOPI device. A recently available suggested corrective value by Curtis et al. (2023) was also applied, with comparisons made between devices both with and without the Curtis correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included 70 adult participants aged 20-89 years (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 52.3 years). Measures with the Tongueometer device were significantly lower when compared with the same measures taken using the IOPI (<i>p</i> < .01) for all measures including MIP, endurance, and swallow pressures. The correction suggested by Curtis and colleagues did not ameliorate these differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Tongueometer lingual measurements were consistently lower compared to the IOPI. Clinical use of values taken with the Tongueometer device should be compared to normative data published for each specific device. Available features of each device (e.g., display, bulb texture, technology/application) should be considered when selecting which device to use with an individual patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criterion (Concurrent) Validity and Clinical Utility of the Tongueometer Device.\",\"authors\":\"Brittany N Krekeler, Anna Hopkins, Meredith E Tabangin, Mekibib Altaye, Rachel Roberts, Raneh Saadi, Bonnie Martin-Harris, Nicole Rogus-Pulia\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Tongue manometry (i.e., tongue pressure measurement) is a commonly used assessment for patients with suspected oral-motor involvement in swallowing disorders. Availability of lingual manometry has changed in recent years, with the introduction of the Tongueometer device being a more affordable tongue manometry system. The purpose of this study was to test concurrent (criterion) validity of the Tongueometer compared to the current standard reference device, the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Adults without dysphagia were recruited for participation in this study. Standard lingual measurements (swallowing-related pressures, maximum isometric pressure [MIP], and maximum isometric endurance) were recorded, with the bulb anteriorly placed, with both devices, in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine concurrent (criterion) validity of these measurements compared to the clinical standard IOPI device. A recently available suggested corrective value by Curtis et al. (2023) was also applied, with comparisons made between devices both with and without the Curtis correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included 70 adult participants aged 20-89 years (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 52.3 years). Measures with the Tongueometer device were significantly lower when compared with the same measures taken using the IOPI (<i>p</i> < .01) for all measures including MIP, endurance, and swallow pressures. The correction suggested by Curtis and colleagues did not ameliorate these differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Tongueometer lingual measurements were consistently lower compared to the IOPI. Clinical use of values taken with the Tongueometer device should be compared to normative data published for each specific device. Available features of each device (e.g., display, bulb texture, technology/application) should be considered when selecting which device to use with an individual patient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00478\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00478","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:舌测压(即舌压测量)是一种常用的评估方法,适用于疑似口腔运动受累的吞咽障碍患者。近年来,随着舌压计设备的推出,舌压计的可用性发生了变化,它是一种更经济实惠的舌压计系统。本研究的目的是测试舌力计与目前的标准参考设备爱荷华州口腔表现测量仪(IOPI)相比的并发(标准)有效性:方法:招募无吞咽困难的成年人参与本研究。记录标准舌测量值(吞咽相关压力、最大等长压力[MIP]和最大等长耐力)时,将舌球置于前方,两种设备均按随机顺序进行。与临床标准 IOPI 设备相比,使用 Bland-Altman 方法确定这些测量值的并发(标准)有效性。此外,还采用了柯蒂斯等人最近提出的校正值(2023 年),并对使用和不使用柯蒂斯校正值的设备进行了比较:最终样本包括 70 名成年参与者,年龄在 20-89 岁之间(平均年龄为 52.3 岁)。使用舌位仪进行的测量结果与使用 IOPI 进行的相同测量结果相比,包括 MIP、耐力和吞咽压力在内的所有测量结果都明显偏低(p < .01)。柯蒂斯及其同事建议的校正并未改善这些差异:结论:与 IOPI 相比,舌位仪的舌位测量值一直较低。临床使用舌力计设备时,应将其测量值与针对每种特定设备公布的标准数据进行比较。在为患者选择使用哪种设备时,应考虑每种设备的可用特性(如显示屏、灯泡质地、技术/应用)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Criterion (Concurrent) Validity and Clinical Utility of the Tongueometer Device.

Purpose: Tongue manometry (i.e., tongue pressure measurement) is a commonly used assessment for patients with suspected oral-motor involvement in swallowing disorders. Availability of lingual manometry has changed in recent years, with the introduction of the Tongueometer device being a more affordable tongue manometry system. The purpose of this study was to test concurrent (criterion) validity of the Tongueometer compared to the current standard reference device, the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI).

Method: Adults without dysphagia were recruited for participation in this study. Standard lingual measurements (swallowing-related pressures, maximum isometric pressure [MIP], and maximum isometric endurance) were recorded, with the bulb anteriorly placed, with both devices, in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine concurrent (criterion) validity of these measurements compared to the clinical standard IOPI device. A recently available suggested corrective value by Curtis et al. (2023) was also applied, with comparisons made between devices both with and without the Curtis correction.

Results: The final sample included 70 adult participants aged 20-89 years (Mage = 52.3 years). Measures with the Tongueometer device were significantly lower when compared with the same measures taken using the IOPI (p < .01) for all measures including MIP, endurance, and swallow pressures. The correction suggested by Curtis and colleagues did not ameliorate these differences.

Conclusions: The Tongueometer lingual measurements were consistently lower compared to the IOPI. Clinical use of values taken with the Tongueometer device should be compared to normative data published for each specific device. Available features of each device (e.g., display, bulb texture, technology/application) should be considered when selecting which device to use with an individual patient.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
353
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic Changes Toward Reflective Practice: Documented Shifts in Speech-Language Pathologists' Evaluation Practices. Efficacy of Complexity-Based Target Selection for Treating Morphosyntactic Deficits in Children With Developmental Language Disorder and Children With Down Syndrome: A Single-Case Experimental Design. Self-Improved Language Production in Nonfluent Aphasia Through Automated Recursive Self-Feedback. The Effects of Functional Reading Activities to Motivate and Empower for Autistic Young Adults: A Single-Case Design Study. Applications of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework to Support the Process of Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia.
×
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