This White Paper by the European Society for Swallowing Disorders (ESSD) reports on the current state of screening and non-instrumental assessment for dysphagia in adults. An overview is provided on the measures that are available, and how to select screening tools and assessments. Emphasis is placed on different types of screening, patient-reported measures, assessment of anatomy and physiology of the swallowing act, and clinical swallowing evaluation. Many screening and non-instrumental assessments are available for evaluating dysphagia in adults; however, their use may not be warranted due to poor diagnostic performance or lacking robust psychometric properties. This white paper provides recommendations on how to select best evidence-based screening tools and non-instrumental assessments for use in clinical practice targeting different constructs, target populations and respondents, based on criteria for diagnostic performance, psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness), and feasibility. In addition, gaps in research that need to be addressed in future studies are discussed. The following recommendations are made: (1) discontinue the use of non-validated dysphagia screening tools and assessments; (2) implement screening using tools that have optimal diagnostic performance in selected populations that are at risk of dysphagia, such as stroke patients, frail older persons, patients with progressive neurological diseases, persons with cerebral palsy, and patients with head and neck cancer; (3) implement measures that demonstrate robust psychometric properties; and (4) provide quality training in dysphagia screening and assessment to all clinicians involved in the care and management of persons with dysphagia.

Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Global Public Health Emergency, experts in swallowing are seeking guidance on service delivery and clinical procedures. The European Society for Swallowing Disorders provides considerations to support experts in swallowing disorders in clinical practice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, assessment and treatment of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia should be provided, while at the same time balancing risk of oropharyngeal complications with that of infection of patients and healthcare professionals involved in their management. Elective, non-urgent assessment may be temporarily postponed and patients are triaged to decide whether dysphagia assessment is necessary; instrumental assessment of swallowing is performed only if processing of the instruments can be guaranteed and clinical assessment has not provided enough diagnostic information for treatment prescription. Assessment and management of oropharyngeal dysphagia is a high-risk situation as it must be considered an aerosol-generating procedure. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should be used. Telepractice is encouraged and compensatory treatments are recommended.

No abstract

The effect of pulsing electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) on bone repair was studied in principal metacarpal bones of eight adult male horses: Six horses were treated with PEMFs, and two horses were untreated. In treated horses, Helmholtz coils were applied during a 60-day period to the left metacarpal bones, bored with eight holes of equal diameter and depth, from the middiaphysis toward the distal metaphysis. Eight equal holes bored in the right metacarpal, surrounded by unactivated Helmholtz coils, were taken as controls. The two untreated horses were taken as additional control. The results of computer-assisted histomorphometric analysis indicate that (a) in diaphyseal levels, the amount of bone formed during 60 days is significantly greater (p less than 0.01) in PEMF-treated holes than in contralateral ones and those in control horses; (b) in metaphyseal levels, PEMF-treated holes are sometimes more closed, sometimes less, as compared with contralateral holes and those in control horses; in any case the statistical analysis indicates that the symmetry in the rate of hole repair, found between the two antimeres of control horses, is not appreciable at metaphyseal levels also; (c) there was no statistically significant difference between untreated holes in PEMF-treated horses and holes in control horses, neither at diaphyseal nor at metaphyseal levels. These preliminary findings indicate that PEMFs at low frequency influence the process of bone repair on both diaphysis and metaphysis, and seem to improve the process of bone repair in skeletal regions normally having a lower osteogenetic activity, i.e., in diaphyses as against metaphyses.

No abstract