History and Science behind the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (Eat-10): Lessons Learned

Impact of Modified Diet, Swallowing Exercises, and Electrostimulation on Quality of Life of Older Patients Suffering from Oropharyngeal Dysphagia

Background and Objectives: Oropharyngeal dysphagia is defined as a swallowing disorder in which it becomes difficult to form a bolus and move food from the mouth to the proximal part of the esophagus. Several factors can cause this disorder in geriatric patients. With oropharyngeal dysphagia, the patient's social isolation and the risk of depression increase, while the quality of life deteriorates. Materials and Methods: In this study, oropharyngeal dysphagia was suspected based on the EAT-10 questionnaire and diagnosed with the water drink test and endoscopic swallowing evaluation, which assesses the aspiration risk by using an eight-point Penetration-Aspiration scale. Patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia received complex treatment: exercises to strengthen the swallowing muscles, electrostimulation of the swallowing muscles, and a modified diet. The quality of life of 64 patients was assessed by using the DHI, SWAL-QoL, and EAT-10 questionnaires before complex treatment and after treatment. The results show that the quality of life improved after the complex treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Results: The mean age of patients was 77.8 (9.1) years, and 56.3% of patients were women. At baseline, mild oropharyngeal dysphagia was found in 18.8% of patients; moderate-in 51.6%; and severe-in 29.7%. Aspiration risk was low in 28.1% of patients; medium-in 39.1%; and high-in 32.8%. The severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration risk significantly decreased after treatment (p = 0.002). The EAT-10 score mean was 15.23 (8.92) points before treatment and decreased to 11.50 (6.12) points after treatment (p < 0.001). Before treatment, the DHI physical score was 15.75 (6.813), the DHI functional score was 14.56 (8.659), and the DHI emotional score was 11.06 (7.848) (p < 0.001), and after complex treatment, the DHI physical score was 14.56 (8.659), the DHI functional score was 9.74 (7.165), and the DHI emotional score was 7.94 (6.588) (p < 0.001). The total SWAL-QoL score mean was 132.71 (34.392) points before treatment and increased to 152.42 (30.547) points after treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Complex treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia plays an important role in improving the quality of life and reducing aspiration risk in older people affected by this condition.

A Psychometric Evaluation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index Using Rasch Analysis

Background/Objectives: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI) is commonly used in oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) research as a self-report measure of functional health status and health-related quality of life. The DHI was developed and validated using classic test theory. The aim of this study was to use item response theory (Rasch analysis) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the DHI. Methods: Prospective, consecutive patient data were collected at dysphagia or otorhinolaryngology clinics. The sample included 256 adults (53.1% male; mean age 65.2) at risk of OD. The measure's response scale, person and item fit characteristics, differential item functioning, and dimensionality were evaluated. Results: The rating scale was ordered but showed a potential gap in the rating category labels for the overall measure. The overall person (0.91) and item (0.97) reliability was excellent. The overall measure reliably separated persons into at least three distinct groups (person separation index = 3.23) based on swallowing abilities, but the subscales showed inadequate separation. All infit mean squares were in the acceptable range except for the underfitting for item 22 (F). More misfitting was evident in the Z-Standard statistics. Differential item functioning results indicated good performance at an item level for the overall measure; however, contrary to expectation, an OD diagnosis presented only with marginal DIF. The dimensionality of the DHI showed two dimensions in contrast to the three dimensions suggested by the original authors. Conclusions: The DHI failed to reproduce the original three subscales. Caution is needed using the DHI subscales; only the DHI total score should be used. A redevelopment of the DHI is needed; however, given the complexities involved in addressing these issues, the development of a new measure that ensures good content validity may be preferred.

Consensus for voice quality assessment in clinical practice: guidelines of the European Laryngological Society and Union of the European Phoniatricians

INTRODUCTION

To update the European guidelines for the assessment of voice quality (VQ) in clinical practice.

METHODS

Nineteen laryngologists-phoniatricians of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) and the Union of the European Phoniatricians (UEP) participated to a modified Delphi process to propose statements about subjective and objective VQ assessments. Two anonymized voting rounds determined a consensus statement to be acceptable when 80% of experts agreed with a rating of at least 3/4. The statements with ≥ 3/4 score by 60-80% of experts were improved and resubmitted to voting until they were validated or rejected.

RESULTS

Of the 90 initial statements, 51 were validated after two voting rounds. A multidimensional set of minimal VQ evaluations was proposed and included: baseline VQ anamnesis (e.g., allergy, medical and surgical history, medication, addiction, singing practice, job, and posture), videolaryngostroboscopy (mucosal wave symmetry, amplitude, morphology, and movements), patient-reported VQ assessment (30- or 10-voice handicap index), perception (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), aerodynamics (maximum phonation time), acoustics (Mean F0, Jitter, Shimmer, and noise-to-harmonic ratio), and clinical instruments associated with voice comorbidities (reflux symptom score, reflux sign assessment, eating-assessment tool-10, and dysphagia handicap index). For perception, aerodynamics and acoustics, experts provided guidelines for the methods of measurement. Some additional VQ evaluations are proposed for voice professionals or patients with some laryngeal diseases.

CONCLUSION

The ELS-UEP consensus for VQ assessment provides clinical statements for the baseline and pre- to post-treatment evaluations of VQ and to improve collaborative research by adopting common and validated VQ evaluation approach.