Cervical Auscultation for Detecting Oropharyngeal Aspiration in Paediatric and Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Author:

Cron Annelise C.1ORCID,David Michael2,Orbell‐Smith Jane3,Chang Anne B.456,Weir Kelly A.78,Frakking Thuy T.1910

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Clinical Research, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland Herston Queensland Australia

2. The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council Sydney New South Wales Australia

3. Education Unit, Caboolture Hospital, Metro North Hospital & Health Service Caboolture Queensland Australia

4. Department of Respiratory Medicine Queensland Children's Hospital South Brisbane Queensland Australia

5. Child Health Division Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University Casuarina Northern Territory Australia

6. Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Queensland University of Technology South Brisbane Queensland Australia

7. Audiology & Speech Pathology, Division of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences The University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

8. Speech Pathology Department Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

9. Research Development Unit, Caboolture Hospital, Metro North Hospital & Health Service Caboolture Queensland Australia

10. Speech Pathology Department Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital & Health Service Southport Queensland Australia

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundCervical auscultation (CA) involves listening to swallowing and respiratory sounds and/or vibrations to detect oropharyngeal aspiration (OPA). CA has shown promising diagnostic test accuracy when used with the clinical swallowing examination and is gaining popularity in clinical practise. There has not been a review to date analysing the accuracy of CA in paediatric and adult populations with meta‐analyses.ObjectivesTo determine the accuracy of CA in detecting OPA in paediatric and adult populations, when compared to instrumental assessments.Search MethodsDatabases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AustHealth, Cochrane and Web of Science. The search was restricted between 01 October 2012 and 01 October 2022.Selection CriteriaInclusion criteria included (a) all clinical populations of all ages, (b) who have had an instrumental assessment and (c) CA. All study types were included.Data Collection and AnalysisStudies were reviewed independently by two authors. The methodological quality of the studies was analysed using the QUADAS‐2.Main ResultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria for this review and meta‐analyses. The pooled diagnostic performance of CA in detecting OPA was 0.91 for sensitivity and 0.79 for specificity. The area under the curve summary receiver operating curve (sROC) was estimated to be 0.86, thereby indicating good discrimination of OPA. Most studies scored high for risk of bias in at least one domain in the QUADAS‐2, likely attributed to a lack of high‐quality prospectively designed studies.ConclusionsThere are promising diagnostic test accuracies for the use of CA in detection of OPA. Future research could include using CA in specific clinical populations and settings, and identifying standardised criteria for CA.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3