Parlak Mümüne Merve, İnceoğlu Pınar, Tokgöz Sibel Alicura, Munis Özlem Bizpınar, Saylam Güleser
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Otolaryngology, Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Etlik City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Dysphagia. 2024 Oct 28. doi: 10.1007/s00455-024-10767-2.
This study aimed to examine the compatibility between individuals with Alzheimer's disease (IwAD) and Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) results obtained from their caregivers and to compare EAT-10 results obtained from IwAD and caregivers with fiberoptic endoscopic swallow evaluation (FEES) results. EAT-10 questions were read aloud to the IwAD; simultaneously, the caregiver was asked to complete the EAT-10 by thinking of the IwAD in a different room. Aspiration, penetration, and residual status were first assessed as "present" or "absent" using FEES, then the Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) was used. EAT-10 items were analyzed with agreement between IwAD and caregiver.The sensitivity and specificity of IwAD and caregiver EAT-10 results for aspiration, penetration, and residue were assessed. EAT-10 cut-off scores were determined for IwAD according to different sources of information.Agreement of the EAT-10 total measurements of IwAD and caregiver was determined to be poor. There was no statistically significant correlation between PAS scores and EAT-10 total IwAD (p = 0.072) and caregiver (p = 0.195) scores. In the aspiration, penetration, and residue measurements of the participants, the area under the ROC curve was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) according to both IwAD and caregiver responses. It was observed that IwAD's statement for aspiration, penetration, and residue in mild stage AD; IwAD for aspiration, caregiver for penetration, both for residue in moderate stage; caregivers for advanced stage gave more accurate results in differentiating individuals with aspiration, penetration, and residue.In conclusion, in this study, according to the information obtained from IwAD or caregivers, it was determined that the agreement between EAT-10 and FEES results was low, especially in recognizing IwAD with aspiration. Therefore, the use of the EAT-10 in IwAD does not provide adequate diagnosis; there is a need to develop other swallowing assessment tools that also provide information about the effectiveness and safety of swallowing specific to IwAD.
本研究旨在检验阿尔茨海默病患者(IwAD)与其照料者所提供的饮食评估工具(EAT - 10)结果之间的一致性,并比较从IwAD及其照料者处获得的EAT - 10结果与纤维内镜吞咽评估(FEES)结果。向IwAD大声朗读EAT - 10的问题;与此同时,要求照料者在另一个房间里想着IwAD的情况来完成EAT - 10。首先使用FEES将误吸、渗透和残留状态评估为“存在”或“不存在”,然后使用渗透误吸量表(PAS)。分析IwAD与照料者之间EAT - 10项目的一致性。评估IwAD和照料者的EAT - 10结果对于误吸、渗透和残留的敏感性和特异性。根据不同的信息来源确定IwAD的EAT - 10 cutoff分数。确定IwAD和照料者的EAT - 10总测量值的一致性较差。PAS分数与IwAD的EAT - 10总分(p = 0.072)和照料者的EAT - 10总分(p = 0.195)之间无统计学显著相关性。在参与者的误吸、渗透和残留测量中,根据IwAD和照料者的回答,ROC曲线下面积均无统计学显著性(p>0.05)。观察到,在轻度阿尔茨海默病阶段,IwAD对于误吸的表述;在中度阶段,IwAD对于误吸、照料者对于渗透、二者对于残留的表述;在重度阶段,照料者的表述在区分有误吸、渗透和残留的个体时给出了更准确的结果。总之,在本研究中,根据从IwAD或照料者处获得的信息,确定EAT - 10与FEES结果之间的一致性较低,尤其是在识别有误吸的IwAD方面。因此,在IwAD中使用EAT - 10不能提供充分的诊断;需要开发其他吞咽评估工具,这些工具还能提供关于IwAD特异性吞咽有效性和安全性的信息。