Can EAT-10 Become EAT-5? Improving Measurement Efficiency of Dysphagia with Item Response Theory

OBJECTIVES

To assess: (1) the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) with item response theory (IRT) to determine which individual items provide the most information, (2) the extent to which dysphagia is measured with subsets of items while maintaining precise score estimates, and (3) if 5-item scales have the differing discriminatory ability, as compared to the parent 10-item instrument.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 2,339 patients who completed the EAT-10 questionnaire during evaluation at a tertiary care otolaryngology clinic were utilized. IRT analyses provided discrimination and location parameters associated with individual questions. Residual item correlations were also assessed for redundant information. Based on these results, three 5-item subsets were further evaluated using item information function curves. Areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC-AUC) were also calculated to evaluate the discriminatory ability for dysphagia-related clinical diagnoses.

RESULTS

Item discrimination parameter estimates ranged from 1.71 to 5.46, with higher values indicating more information. Residual item correlations were determined within item pairs, and location parameters were calculated. Based on these data, in combination with clinical utility, three 5-item subsets were proposed and assessed. ROC-AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between the EAT-5-Alpha subset and the original 10-item instrument for discriminating dysphagia as a primary diagnosis (0.88, 0.88). The EAT-5-Clinical subset outperformed the original 10 instruments in ROC-AUC for aspiration. The EAT-5-Range subset was significantly associated with problems with thin liquids.

CONCLUSIONS

IRT analyses distinguished three proposed 5-item subsets of the EAT-10 instrument, supporting shorter survey options, while still reflecting the impact of dysphagia without significant loss of discrimination.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 (Diagnostic testing with consistently applied reference standards, partial blinding). Laryngoscope, 133:3327-3333, 2023.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 14: Falsehood and Bias

OBJECTIVE

Falsehood and bias can have tangible effects, whether related to the "hoax" of Corona virus disease/COVID-19 or the impact of personal protective equipment in city-wide news. The spread of false information requires the diversion of time and resources into rebolstering the truth. Our objective is thus to elucidate types of bias that may influence our daily work, along with ways to mitigate them.

DATA SOURCES

Publications are included which delineate specific aspects of bias or address how to preempt, mitigate, or correct bias, whether conscious or unconscious.

REVIEW METHODS

We discuss: (1) the background and rationale for proactively considering potential sources of bias, (2) relevant definitions and concepts, (3) potential means to limit effects of inaccurate data sources, and (4) evolving frontiers in the management of bias. In doing so, we review epidemiological concepts and susceptibility to bias within study designs, including database studies, observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We additionally discuss concepts such as the difference between disinformation and misinformation, differential or nondifferential misclassification, bias toward a null result, and unconscious bias, among others.

CONCLUSION

We have the means to mitigate sources of potential bias in database studies, observational studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews, beginning with education and awareness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

False information may spread faster than true information, so it is beneficial to understand potential sources of falsehood we face, in order to safeguard our daily impressions and decisions. Awareness of potential sources of falsehood and bias forms the foundation for accuracy in our everyday work.