Suppr超能文献

使用颈部听诊预测儿童口咽性误吸:一项随机对照试验。

The Use of Cervical Auscultation to Predict Oropharyngeal Aspiration in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

作者信息

Frakking Thuy T, Chang Anne B, O'Grady Kerry-Ann F, David Michael, Walker-Smith Katie, Weir Kelly A

机构信息

Centre for Children's Health Research, The University of Queensland, Level 7, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.

Speech Pathology Department, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Level 6a, 501 Stanley St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.

出版信息

Dysphagia. 2016 Dec;31(6):738-748. doi: 10.1007/s00455-016-9727-5. Epub 2016 Jul 11.

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to determine if the use of cervical auscultation (CA) as an adjunct to the clinical feeding evaluation (CFE + CA) improves the reliability of predicting oropharyngeal aspiration (abbreviated to aspiration) in children. The design of the study is based on open label, randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation. Results from children (<18 years) randomized to either CFE or CFE + CA were compared to videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS), the reference standard data. Aspiration was defined using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale. All assessments were undertaken at a single tertiary pediatric hospital. 155 children referred for a feeding/swallowing assessment were randomized into the CFE n = 83 [38 males; mean age = 34.9 months (SD 34.4)] or CFE + CA n = 72 [43 males; mean age = 39.6 months (SD 39.3)] group. kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity values, area under receiver operating curve (aROC). No significant differences between groups were found, although CFE + CA (kappa = 0.41, 95 % CI 0.2-0.62) had higher agreement for aspiration detection by VFSS, compared to the clinical feeding exam alone (kappa = 0.31, 95 % CI 0.10-0.52). Sensitivity was 85 % (95 % CI 62.1-96.8) for CFE + CA and 63.6 % (95 % CI 45.1-79.6) for CFE. aROC was not significantly greater for CFE + CA (0.75, 95 % CI 0.65-0.86) than CFE (0.66, 95 % CI 0.55-0.76) across all age groups. Although using CA as an adjunct to the clinical feeding evaluation improves the sensitivity of predicting aspiration in children, it is not sensitive enough as a diagnostic tool in isolation. Given the serious implications of missing the diagnosis of aspiration, instrumental assessments (e.g., VFSS), remain the preferred standard.

摘要

在本研究中,我们旨在确定将颈部听诊(CA)作为临床喂养评估(CFE + CA)的辅助手段是否能提高预测儿童口咽性误吸(简称为误吸)的可靠性。本研究设计基于开放标签、随机对照试验且采用隐蔽分组。将随机分为CFE组或CFE + CA组的儿童(<18岁)的结果与视频荧光吞咽造影检查(VFSS)(参考标准数据)进行比较。误吸采用渗透 - 误吸量表进行定义。所有评估均在一家三级儿科医院进行。155名因喂养/吞咽评估前来就诊的儿童被随机分为CFE组(n = 83,其中38名男性;平均年龄 = 34.9个月(标准差34.4))或CFE + CA组(n = 72,其中43名男性;平均年龄 = 39.6个月(标准差39.3))。计算kappa统计量、敏感性和特异性值以及受试者操作特征曲线下面积(aROC)。尽管CFE + CA组(kappa = 0.41,95%可信区间0.2 - 0.62)与仅进行临床喂养检查(kappa = 0.31,95%可信区间0.10 - 0.52)相比,在通过VFSS检测误吸方面具有更高的一致性,但两组之间未发现显著差异。CFE + CA组的敏感性为85%(95%可信区间62.1 - 96.8),CFE组为63.6%(95%可信区间45.1 - 79.6)。在所有年龄组中,CFE + CA组的aROC(0.75,95%可信区间0.65 - 0.86)并不显著高于CFE组(0.66,95%可信区间0.55 - 0.76)。虽然将CA作为临床喂养评估的辅助手段可提高预测儿童误吸的敏感性,但单独作为诊断工具时不够敏感。鉴于漏误诊误吸的严重后果,器械评估(如VFSS)仍是首选标准。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验