Linking the impact of aspiration to host variables using the BOLUS framework: support from a rapid review

Phyllis M Palmer, Aaron H Padilla
{"title":"Linking the impact of aspiration to host variables using the BOLUS framework: support from a rapid review","authors":"Phyllis M Palmer, Aaron H Padilla","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2024.1412635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this rapid review was to identify the level of evidence for a previously proposed theoretical framework to assess risks associated with prandial aspiration using the host as a central theme.Covidence software was used to search two databases (PubMed and Web of Science). PEDro scale was utilized to determine the quality of individual studies. Data points were evaluated for level of support and determined to be either conclusive, suggestive, unclear, or not supportive. Within each component of the framework, data points were clustered to determine the level of evidence as strong, moderate, insufficient, or negative.The rapid review process resulted in a limited number of publications investigating host variables impact on outcomes for patients with swallowing disorders. Overall, it yielded 937 articles, of which, upon review, 16 articles were selected for data extraction. There was a strong level of evidence to support that (a) as viscosity and density of aspirate increased, so did the likelihood of general medical complications, (b) poor oral care and oral health increase the risk of a pulmonary or general medical complication, and (c) the presence of oropharyngeal or laryngeal tubes increases the risk of a pulmonary consequence. There was moderate evidence to support the impact of amount and frequency of aspiration on outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to determine relationships for all other aspects of the BOLUS framework.Additional evidence to support the BOLUS framework was obtained; however, the number of studies was limited. A more thorough review such as a systematic review should be employed.","PeriodicalId":507590,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2024.1412635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this rapid review was to identify the level of evidence for a previously proposed theoretical framework to assess risks associated with prandial aspiration using the host as a central theme.Covidence software was used to search two databases (PubMed and Web of Science). PEDro scale was utilized to determine the quality of individual studies. Data points were evaluated for level of support and determined to be either conclusive, suggestive, unclear, or not supportive. Within each component of the framework, data points were clustered to determine the level of evidence as strong, moderate, insufficient, or negative.The rapid review process resulted in a limited number of publications investigating host variables impact on outcomes for patients with swallowing disorders. Overall, it yielded 937 articles, of which, upon review, 16 articles were selected for data extraction. There was a strong level of evidence to support that (a) as viscosity and density of aspirate increased, so did the likelihood of general medical complications, (b) poor oral care and oral health increase the risk of a pulmonary or general medical complication, and (c) the presence of oropharyngeal or laryngeal tubes increases the risk of a pulmonary consequence. There was moderate evidence to support the impact of amount and frequency of aspiration on outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to determine relationships for all other aspects of the BOLUS framework.Additional evidence to support the BOLUS framework was obtained; however, the number of studies was limited. A more thorough review such as a systematic review should be employed.
利用 BOLUS 框架将愿望的影响与东道国变量联系起来:快速审查提供的支持
本快速综述旨在确定之前提出的理论框架的证据水平,该框架以宿主为中心主题,用于评估与餐前吸入相关的风险。使用 PEDro 量表确定各项研究的质量。对数据点的支持程度进行评估,并将其确定为确证、提示、不明确或不支持。在该框架的每个组成部分中,对数据点进行分组,以确定证据水平为有力、适度、不充分或负面。总体而言,共收到 937 篇文章,经审查,选出 16 篇进行数据提取。有大量证据支持以下观点:(a) 随着吸出物粘度和密度的增加,发生一般医疗并发症的可能性也随之增加;(b) 口腔护理和口腔健康状况不佳会增加肺部或一般医疗并发症的风险;(c) 口咽或喉管的存在会增加肺部后果的风险。中度证据支持吸入量和频率对结果的影响。没有足够的证据确定 BOLUS 框架所有其他方面的关系。应采用更彻底的审查方法,如系统审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信