肿瘤学实践中推荐的补偿性吞咽策略:实践模式及其与吞咽毒性动态影像分级(DIGEST)分级的关系。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Dysphagia Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1007/s00455-024-10799-8
Barbara M Ebersole, Julianna Chapman, Carla L Warneke, Sheila Buoy, X Tang, Holly McMillan, Ella Aldridge, Carly E A Barbon, Katherine A Hutcheson
{"title":"肿瘤学实践中推荐的补偿性吞咽策略:实践模式及其与吞咽毒性动态影像分级(DIGEST)分级的关系。","authors":"Barbara M Ebersole, Julianna Chapman, Carla L Warneke, Sheila Buoy, X Tang, Holly McMillan, Ella Aldridge, Carly E A Barbon, Katherine A Hutcheson","doi":"10.1007/s00455-024-10799-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Compensatory swallow strategies are recommended to improve swallow safety and efficiency; however, there is limited evidence on use in specific populations or their relationship to swallow study results. We sought to describe/explore strategy recommendations in an oncology practice and their relationship to Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) grades as a marker of clinical utility of the tool. This is a sub-study of a STARI-guided retrospective implementation evaluation at a single comprehensive cancer center. Electronic health record databases were queried to sample all modified barium swallow studies (MBS) for all adult oncology patients from 2016 to 2021, excluding total laryngectomy, leak studies and those with missing DIGEST grades. For patients with multiple MBS studies across the study period, one MBS was randomly selected to be included in the analytic sample. DIGEST grade, diet recommendation, oncologic details, and swallow strategy details were chart abstracted. Strategies and oral intake recommendations were classified from least to most restrictive. This study included 4570 patients representing diverse oncology populations (46% head and neck). DIGEST grades indicating at least mild dysphagia (grades ≥ 1) were reported in 2486 of MBS (54%). Strategies were recommended in 2028 MBS (44%). As DIGEST grade increased so did strategy utilization and complexity (Spearman's r (r<sub>S</sub>) = 0.76, p < 0.0001). This pattern was consistent for Safety (r<sub>S</sub> = 0.68) and Efficiency (r<sub>S</sub> = 0.73) grades (both p < 0.0001). Swallow strategies are frequently recommended in oncology populations. This is the first study to show a systematic link between DIGEST grade and MBS compensatory strategy recommendations, supporting clinical effectiveness of DIGEST as an evidence-based practice tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compensatory Swallowing Strategies Recommended in Oncology Practice: Practice Patterns and Relationship to Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Grades.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara M Ebersole, Julianna Chapman, Carla L Warneke, Sheila Buoy, X Tang, Holly McMillan, Ella Aldridge, Carly E A Barbon, Katherine A Hutcheson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00455-024-10799-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Compensatory swallow strategies are recommended to improve swallow safety and efficiency; however, there is limited evidence on use in specific populations or their relationship to swallow study results. We sought to describe/explore strategy recommendations in an oncology practice and their relationship to Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) grades as a marker of clinical utility of the tool. This is a sub-study of a STARI-guided retrospective implementation evaluation at a single comprehensive cancer center. Electronic health record databases were queried to sample all modified barium swallow studies (MBS) for all adult oncology patients from 2016 to 2021, excluding total laryngectomy, leak studies and those with missing DIGEST grades. For patients with multiple MBS studies across the study period, one MBS was randomly selected to be included in the analytic sample. DIGEST grade, diet recommendation, oncologic details, and swallow strategy details were chart abstracted. Strategies and oral intake recommendations were classified from least to most restrictive. This study included 4570 patients representing diverse oncology populations (46% head and neck). DIGEST grades indicating at least mild dysphagia (grades ≥ 1) were reported in 2486 of MBS (54%). Strategies were recommended in 2028 MBS (44%). As DIGEST grade increased so did strategy utilization and complexity (Spearman's r (r<sub>S</sub>) = 0.76, p < 0.0001). This pattern was consistent for Safety (r<sub>S</sub> = 0.68) and Efficiency (r<sub>S</sub> = 0.73) grades (both p < 0.0001). Swallow strategies are frequently recommended in oncology populations. This is the first study to show a systematic link between DIGEST grade and MBS compensatory strategy recommendations, supporting clinical effectiveness of DIGEST as an evidence-based practice tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dysphagia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dysphagia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10799-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10799-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

推荐补偿性吞咽策略以提高吞咽安全性和效率;然而,关于在特定人群中使用或它们与吞咽研究结果的关系的证据有限。我们试图描述/探索肿瘤实践中的策略建议及其与吞咽毒性动态成像分级(DIGEST)分级的关系,作为该工具临床应用的标志。这是在一个单一的综合性癌症中心进行的stari指导的回顾性实施评估的子研究。对电子健康记录数据库进行查询,对2016年至2021年所有成年肿瘤患者的所有改良钡剂吞咽研究(MBS)进行抽样,不包括全喉切除术、泄漏研究和消化道分级缺失的患者。对于在研究期间进行多项MBS研究的患者,随机选择一项MBS纳入分析样本。消化道分级、饮食建议、肿瘤细节、吞咽策略细节用图表抽象。策略和口服摄入建议从限制最少到最严格进行分类。该研究包括4570例患者,代表不同的肿瘤人群(46%头颈部)。2486例(54%)MBS患者报告了至少轻度吞咽困难(≥1级)的DIGEST分级。在2028年MBS中推荐了策略(44%)。随着DIGEST评分的增加,策略利用和复杂性(Spearman r = 0.76, p S = 0.68)和效率(rS = 0.73)评分也增加了
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
Compensatory Swallowing Strategies Recommended in Oncology Practice: Practice Patterns and Relationship to Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Grades.

Compensatory swallow strategies are recommended to improve swallow safety and efficiency; however, there is limited evidence on use in specific populations or their relationship to swallow study results. We sought to describe/explore strategy recommendations in an oncology practice and their relationship to Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) grades as a marker of clinical utility of the tool. This is a sub-study of a STARI-guided retrospective implementation evaluation at a single comprehensive cancer center. Electronic health record databases were queried to sample all modified barium swallow studies (MBS) for all adult oncology patients from 2016 to 2021, excluding total laryngectomy, leak studies and those with missing DIGEST grades. For patients with multiple MBS studies across the study period, one MBS was randomly selected to be included in the analytic sample. DIGEST grade, diet recommendation, oncologic details, and swallow strategy details were chart abstracted. Strategies and oral intake recommendations were classified from least to most restrictive. This study included 4570 patients representing diverse oncology populations (46% head and neck). DIGEST grades indicating at least mild dysphagia (grades ≥ 1) were reported in 2486 of MBS (54%). Strategies were recommended in 2028 MBS (44%). As DIGEST grade increased so did strategy utilization and complexity (Spearman's r (rS) = 0.76, p < 0.0001). This pattern was consistent for Safety (rS = 0.68) and Efficiency (rS = 0.73) grades (both p < 0.0001). Swallow strategies are frequently recommended in oncology populations. This is the first study to show a systematic link between DIGEST grade and MBS compensatory strategy recommendations, supporting clinical effectiveness of DIGEST as an evidence-based practice tool.

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
Dysphagia
Dysphagia 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence in Videofluoroscopy Swallow Study Analysis: A Comprehensive Review. Predictive Power of Pharyngolaryngeal Secretion Accumulations for Penetration and Aspiration in Head and Neck Cancer Patients. Acoustic and Perceptual Profiles of Swallowing Sounds in Preterm Neonates: A Cross-Sectional Study Cohort. Recovery of Swallowing Function and Prognostic Factors Associated with Exacerbation of Post-stroke Dysphagia. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Swallowing Satisfaction Scale (SSS).
×
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