Recherche

Résultats de recherche

  • DIGEST Stroke Validation Repository

    User Collection
    Collection thumbnail: DIGEST Stroke Validation Repository
    Type:
    Collection
    Description/Abstract:
    The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) rating method was developed in head and neck cancer populations to describe severity of aspiration and residue. The purpose of this study was to assess criterion validity of DIGEST in a post-stroke cohort. In this retrospective analysis, 2 raters (using version 2 criteria) performed DIGEST rating on recordings of modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) from 88 post-stroke patients that were extracted from a larger de-identified database. Modified Barium Swallow Study Impairment Profile (MBSImP) scores and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores were used to determine criterion validity. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for overall DIGEST grade were substantial (ƙ=0.69 and 0.73, respectively), however inter-rater reliability for efficiency were only moderately reliable (ƙ=0.52). Reliability for MBSImP scoring was excellent for Pharyngeal Total (PT) scores (ICC=0.81-0.93). Overall DIGEST grades were significantly associated with PT scores in the expected direction (τ=0.51, p<0.0001), and there was no association between Oral Total (OT) and DIGEST grade (τ=-0.02, p=0.077). Pairwise comparisons using PT scores indicated significant differentiation between DIGEST grades 0 from all other grades (p<0.0001), with overlap in intermediate grades (p=0.106-0.713). Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores were significantly associated with DIGEST grade in the anticipated direction (τ=-0.43, p<0.0001). Expected psychometrics and acceptable reliability for DIGEST grading were shown in this post-stroke cohort. A larger dataset would clarify mid-grade differentiation and potential influence of oral phase impairments in this sub-population.
    Creator/Author:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Submitter:
    Brittany Krekeler
    License:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)
    0Collections
    1Works

  • Tongueometer Validation Study

    User Collection
    Collection thumbnail: Tongueometer Validation Study
    Type:
    Collection
    Description/Abstract:
    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. 
    Creator/Author:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Submitter:
    Brittany Krekeler
    License:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)
    0Collections
    1Works

  • DIGEST Stroke Validation

    Dataset thumbnail: DIGEST Stroke Validation
    Type:
    Dataset
    Description/Abstract:
    Raw data
    Creator/Author:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Submitter:
    Brittany Krekeler
    Date Uploaded:
    01/30/2025
    Date Modified:
    01/30/2025
    Date Created:
    2025-01-30
    License:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)

  • Tongueometer Validation Data

    Dataset thumbnail: Tongueometer Validation Data
    Type:
    Dataset
    Description/Abstract:
    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. 
    Creator/Author:
    Krekeler, Brittany
    Submitter:
    Brittany Krekeler
    Date Uploaded:
    01/26/2024
    Date Modified:
    01/26/2024
    Date Created:
    2020-01-01
    License:
    Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)