Scholarlink

<p>This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy for assessment tools as compared to reference standard in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Dysphagia (ICUAD) using network meta-analysis. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted from database inception before May 2025 to identify studies on ICUAD assessment tools. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. All analyses were implemented in R version 4.3.2.&#xa0;True positives (TP), False positives (FP), True negatives (TN), False negatives (FN), Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive value (PPV), and Negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and used to rank the index tests. Nineteen studies involving 1,167 patients and 11 tools were analyzed. The gold standards, Video Fluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) and Flexible Endoscopic Examination of Swallowing (FEES), showed the highest accuracy. Among bedside tools, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) (32.55%) and Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) (42.26%) achieved the best balance of sensitivity and specificity, followed by the modified Volume-Viscosity Swallow Test (mV-VST) (30.07%). GUSS and SSA are practical and reliable bedside tools for ICUAD screening, but cannot replace VFSS or FEES. Further large-scale high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm their diagnostic performance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessment Tools for Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Dysphagia: A Network Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月17日

查看全文
  • Lijun Ge,
  • Yi Hu,
  • Beiyao Gao,
  • Siyuan Wang,
  • Yan Hou,
  • Haoran Yang,
  • Peijian Wang,
  • Shan Jiang

摘要

This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy for assessment tools as compared to reference standard in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Dysphagia (ICUAD) using network meta-analysis. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted from database inception before May 2025 to identify studies on ICUAD assessment tools. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. All analyses were implemented in R version 4.3.2. True positives (TP), False positives (FP), True negatives (TN), False negatives (FN), Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive value (PPV), and Negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and used to rank the index tests. Nineteen studies involving 1,167 patients and 11 tools were analyzed. The gold standards, Video Fluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) and Flexible Endoscopic Examination of Swallowing (FEES), showed the highest accuracy. Among bedside tools, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) (32.55%) and Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) (42.26%) achieved the best balance of sensitivity and specificity, followed by the modified Volume-Viscosity Swallow Test (mV-VST) (30.07%). GUSS and SSA are practical and reliable bedside tools for ICUAD screening, but cannot replace VFSS or FEES. Further large-scale high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm their diagnostic performance.