Buscar

Resultados de la búsqueda

  • DIGEST Stroke Validation

    Dataset thumbnail: DIGEST Stroke Validation
    Type:
    Dataset
    Descripción/Resumen:
    Raw data
    Creador/Autor:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Peticionario:
    Brittany Krekeler
    Fecha modificada:
    01/30/2025
    Fecha modificada:
    01/30/2025
    Fecha de creacion:
    2025-01-30
    Licencia:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)

  • Tongueometer Validation Data

    Dataset thumbnail: Tongueometer Validation Data
    Type:
    Dataset
    Descripción/Resumen:
    ABSTRACT Purpose: Tongue manometry (i.e. tongue pressure measurement) is a commonly used assessment for patients with suspected oral-motor involvement in swallowing disorders. Availability of lingual manometry has changed in recent years, with the introduction of the TongueometerTM device being a more affordable tongue manometry system. The purpose of this study was to test concurrent (criterion) validity of the TongueometerTM compared to the current standard reference device, the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument, IOPI®. Method: Adults without dysphagia were recruited for participation in this study. Standard lingual measurements (swallowing-related pressures, maximum isometric pressure (MIP), and maximum isometric endurance) were recorded, with the bulb anteriorly placed, with both devices, in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine concurrent (criterion) validity of these measurements compared to the clinical standard IOPI® device. A recently available suggested corrective value by Curtis and colleagues (2023) was also applied, with comparisons made between devices both with and without the Curtis correction. Results: The final sample included 70 adult participants aged 20-89 years (average age 52.3 years). Measures with the TongueometerTM device were significantly lower when compared with the same measures taken using the IOPI® (p<0.01) for all measures including MIP, endurance, and swallow pressures. The correction suggested by Curtis and colleagues did not ameliorate these differences. Conclusions: The TongueometerTM lingual measurements were consistently lower compared to the IOPI®. Clinical use of values taken with the TongueometerTM device should be compared to normative data published for each specific device. Available features of each device (e.g. display, bulb texture, technology/application) should be considered when selecting which device to use with an individual patient. 
    Creador/Autor:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Peticionario:
    Brittany Krekeler
    Fecha modificada:
    01/26/2024
    Fecha modificada:
    01/26/2024
    Fecha de creacion:
    2020-01-01
    Licencia:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)