Boaden E, Nightingale J, Bradbury C, Hives L, Georgiou R
Brook Building, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Radiography (Lond). 2020 May;26(2):154-162. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.011. Epub 2019 Nov 25.
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are expected to make evidence-based recommendations, thus guiding practice and reducing unwarranted variation. CPGs are particularly helpful in guiding complex procedures such as the Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study (VFSS) for the assessment of dysphagia, but there is a suspected high level of variability among them. To explore the extent of this variation, this study aimed to systematically identify and appraise all VFSS CPGs available worldwide.
A systematic search of 3 academic databases and other sources was conducted to identify relevant CPGs; independent reviews of each CPG were undertaken by a Speech and Language Therapist and a Radiographer. Both reviewers completed a pre-determined checklist of expected professional content for each CPG. CPGs were then assessed for quality using the Appraisal of Guidance for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Findings from the professional content review and the methodological quality review were synthesised to inform an assessment of suitability of each CPG to inform clinical practice.
Seven VFSS CPGs were identified worldwide, none of which were co-designed by radiographers or aimed at a radiographer audience. Each differs in their professional content, recommendations, underpinning evidence base and professional focus. Average AGREE ll scores across the quality domains vary considerably, ranging from 93 to 22%. No CPGs scored highly on all six AGREE II domains.
There is no standardisation between VFSS guidelines. Six CPGs are not recommended for clinical use; only one of the seven identified CPGs is recommended for use following significant modification.
The lack of a comprehensive, evidence-based guideline encourages unwarranted variation in clinical practice which potentially compromises clinical care. Further research is needed to define VFSS best practice.
临床实践指南(CPG)旨在做出基于证据的建议,从而指导实践并减少不必要的差异。CPG在指导诸如用于吞咽困难评估的视频荧光吞咽造影检查(VFSS)等复杂程序方面特别有帮助,但人们怀疑它们之间存在高度的变异性。为了探究这种变异的程度,本研究旨在系统地识别和评估全球范围内所有可用的VFSS CPG。
对3个学术数据库和其他来源进行系统检索以识别相关的CPG;由一名言语和语言治疗师以及一名放射技师对每个CPG进行独立评审。两位评审员都为每个CPG完成了一份预先确定的预期专业内容清单。然后使用研究与评估指南评估II(AGREE II)工具对CPG的质量进行评估。综合专业内容评审和方法学质量评审的结果,以评估每个CPG对临床实践指导的适用性。
在全球范围内识别出7份VFSS CPG,其中没有一份是由放射技师共同设计的,也没有针对放射技师群体。它们在专业内容、建议、基础证据基础和专业重点方面各有不同。各质量领域的平均AGREE II得分差异很大,从93%到22%不等。没有CPG在AGREE II的所有六个领域都获得高分。
VFSS指南之间没有标准化。不建议将6份CPG用于临床;在经过重大修改后,仅推荐所识别的7份CPG中的1份用于临床。
缺乏全面的、基于证据的指南会助长临床实践中不必要的差异,这可能会损害临床护理。需要进一步研究来确定VFSS的最佳实践。