Validation of the Dutch Version of the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory for Neurogenic Patients

A Hard Truth to Swallow: Critically Evaluating the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) as an Endpoint in Human Papillomavirus-associated Oropharyngeal Cancer Trials

The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), a measure of swallowing-related quality of life, has become the preferred patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in contemporary clinical trials evaluating the experience of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPVOPSCC) survivors. With many potentially practice-changing studies using the MDADI composite score as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, or as a key secondary endpoint, it is important to understand its psychometric properties as judged by contemporary PROM standards, with a particular focus on its application to contemporary HPVOPSCC populations. In this critical review, we evaluate contemporary HPVOPSCC studies reporting MDADI outcomes, followed by a detailed evaluation of the psychometric properties of the MDADI. Although the focus of this review was the MDADI, the issues discussed are not unique to the MDADI and have broader applicability to the evaluation and assessment of other PROMs currently in use. First, it may be possible to improve administration of the instrument, as related to missing items, scoring, and the number of items required. Second, although in many instances, the MDADI has been intended as a direct or surrogate measure of swallowing physiology, the MDADI composite score captures a broader health-related quality of life construct affected by both swallowing and eating, the latter of which may be affected by a range of nonswallowing treatment-related toxicities. Finally, a clinically meaningful change of 10 in the MDADI composite score, widely accepted and applied to the clinical trial setting, represents an undoubtably clinically relevant difference in unselected head and neck cancer survivors. However, the smallest difference that might be clinically important to a highly functional HPVOPSCC cohort remains uncertain. Understanding the purpose and properties of the MDADI instrument and furthering the sophistication with which we apply it in this population would improve its interpretation in clinical trials.

Development of a Dutch Version of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire: Assessing Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Severity in Dutch-Speaking Populations

Aims

The oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) poses substantial health risks and affects quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining prominence for their crucial role in early detection and adapting rehabilitation and management decisions. This highlights the need for culturally pertinent versions in different languages, especially when addressing conditions like OD. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and assess the test-retest reliability of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ), a PROM designed to detect the risk of OD, for Dutch-speaking populations.

Materials and Methods

The SSQ was translated and adapted based on Beaton's guidelines. Validity and test-retest reliability were assessed in 100 healthy participants, with a subset of 30 participants assessed over a 15-day interval. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values were calculated to determine test-retest reliability.

Results

The SSQ-Dutch was well received and well understood, with a median total score of 65.5/1700. Notably, 95% of participants scored below the established dysphagia risk cut-off, consistent with previous validations. The 15-day interval ICC for the SSQ-Dutch total scores was 0.82 (CI 95%: 0.66-0.91), indicating good reliability. While most questions had moderate-to-good reliability, five showed slightly lower ICC.

Conclusion

The SSQ-Dutch emerges as a validated and reliable tool for assessing OD risk in Dutch-speaking individuals. Future studies should evaluate its efficacy in symptomatic populations and consider cultural variations in Dutch-speaking regions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-024-04484-3.

Intra and interobserver agreement of the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity Scale (DIGEST) in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES): the importance of observer-tailored training

PURPOSE

The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) is a scale to quantify the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. This study (1) described the training process of the observers for DIGEST in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), (2) determined observer agreement on the DIGEST in FEES, (3) explored the effect of bolus consistency on observer agreement, and 4) explored criterion validity of the DIGEST in FEES.

METHODS

Twenty-seven dysphagic HNC patients were enrolled. Two observers completed a training program for DIGEST in FEES. Observer agreement on the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), percentage of pharyngeal residue (PPR), and DIGEST grades was determined using linearly weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ).

RESULTS

Due to insufficient observer agreement after the first measurement attempt, additional training was organized using an elaborated manual with descriptions of the visuoperceptual variables, thereby improving observer agreement. Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect on the PAS (κ = 0.86-0.88) and PPR (κ = 0.84-0.86). Interobserver agreement was substantial on the PAS (κ = 0.78), almost perfect on the PPR (κ = 0.82), substantial on the safety grade (κ = 0.64), almost perfect on the efficiency grade (κ = 0.85), and substantial on the summary grade (κ = 0.71). Bolus consistency had an effect on observer agreement. A significant correlation was found between DIGEST efficiency grade and EAT-10.

CONCLUSION

The DIGEST showed to be a reproducible measurement for FEES in terms of observer agreement. However, agreement between novice observers on the DIGEST was only reached after specific observer-tailored training. Observer agreement should be analyzed by taking bolus consistency into account during training, as this might affect the interpretation of the outcome. A manual with well-defined descriptions can optimize the reproducibility of DIGEST measurements.

Malnutrition risk and oropharyngeal dysphagia in the chronic post-stroke phase

Background

Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) and malnutrition are associated with poor clinical outcomes after stroke. The present study evaluated (1) malnutrition risk and OD-related characteristics in patients with chronic post-stroke OD, and (2) the relationship between on the one hand OD severity and on the other hand functional oral intake and dysphagia-specific quality of life.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a Dutch interdisciplinary outpatient clinic for OD. The standardized examination protocol comprised: clinical ear, nose, and throat examination, body mass index, the short nutritional assessment questionnaire (SNAQ), a standardized fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), the functional oral intake scale (FOIS), and the MD Anderson dysphagia inventory (MDADI).

Results

Forty-two consecutive patients with chronic post-stroke OD were included. Mean (±SD) age and BMI of the population were 69.1 (±8.7) years and 26.8 (±4.1) kg/m2 respectively. Seventeen (40.4%) patients presented a moderate to high risk of malnutrition (SNAQ score≥2). The FEES examination showed moderate to severe OD in 28 (66.7%) patients. The severity of OD was significantly related to the FOIS score but not to the MDADI scores.

Conclusion

In this specific sample of referred stroke patients, moderate to severe OD and moderate to high risk of malnutrition were common. Despite the use of clinical practice guidelines on stroke and a normal nutritional status at first sight, repeated screening for malnutrition and monitoring the severity and management of OD remain important elements in the care of patients with chronic post-stroke OD.

Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Questionnaires for Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life with Dysphagia in Different Countries: A Systematic Review

Dysphagia can have devastating and long-lasting effects on the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In recent years, a number of questionnaires for the evaluation of the HRQoL of patients with dysphagia have been developed and have been adapted for use in different countries and cultures. However, problems may arise in the process of cultural adaptation and validation, which can affect the quality of the questionnaires and their measurements. This study was conducted to systematically summarize the cultural adaptation and validation of questionnaires for the evaluation of dysphagia-related HRQoL in different countries, assessing the varieties, measurement properties, and qualities of these questionnaires, with the aim of identifying the status of their adaptation and validation and ways in which they might be improved. Four databases were searched, and relevant articles were screened, with data from eligible reports extracted and reviewed. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the QualSyst critical appraisal tool. The HRQoL questionnaires for patients with dysphagia were assessed using the quality criteria for the measurement properties of health status questionnaires proposed by Terwee et al. and Timmerman et al. 29 studies published between 2008 and 2020 were included. The questionnaires described in these 29 studies were translated into 19 languages and culturally adapted to 21 countries. The adapted questionnaires were based on the Swallowing quality of life questionnaire (SWAL-QOL) by Mchorney et al., the Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI) by Silbergleit et al., the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) by Chen et al., and the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) by Belafsky et al. It was found that the questionnaires were reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of dysphagia-related HRQoL, but the quality criteria for cultural adaptation and validation were not strictly followed, especially in the categories of criterion validity, agreement, responsiveness, and interpretability. In conclusion, although the questionnaires were found to be both reliable and valid, the quality criteria should be considered and strictly followed in the cultural adaptation and validation process in the future.

Swallowing Assessment in Parkinson's Disease: Patient and Investigator Reported Outcome Measures are not Aligned

This study determines the relationship between patient and investigator reported outcome measures (PROMs versus IROMs) on oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in Parkinson's disease (PD). The PROMs used are the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) and the Dysphagia Severity Scale (DSS). The IROMs used are fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and videofluoroscopy of swallowing (VFS). Ninety dysphagic PD patients were included. Multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network analysis was used to investigate the relationship between PROMs and IROMs on OD in PD. MLP neural network analysis showed a moderate agreement between PROMs and IROMs, with an area under the curve between 0.6 and 0.7. Two-step cluster analysis revealed several clusters of patients with similar scores on FEES and/or VFS variables, but with significant different scores on MDADI and DSS variables. This study highlights that there are PD patients with similar FEES and/or VFS findings that cannot be lumped together under the same pathophysiological umbrella due to their differences in PROMs. Since the exact origin of these differences is not fully understood, it seems appropriate for the time being to take into account the different dimensions of OD during the swallowing assessment so that they can be included in a patient-tailored treatment plan.