Dysphagia therapy augmented by biofeedback using sEMG and accelerometry enhances hyoid displacement but functional improvements in swallowing are not evident. However, data are extremely limited and further larger well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Post stroke dysphagia (PSD) is common and associated with poor outcome. The Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), which grades how severe dysphagia is based on fluid and diet modification and supervision requirements for feeding, is used for clinical research but has limited published validation information. Multiple approaches were taken to validate the DSRS, including concurrent- and predictive criterion validity, internal consistency, inter- and intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change. This was done using data from four studies involving pharyngeal electrical stimulation in acute stroke patients with dysphagia, an individual patient data meta-analysis and unpublished studies (NCT03499574, NCT03700853). In addition, consensual- and content validity and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) were assessed using anonymous surveys sent to UK-based Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs). Scores for consensual validity were mostly moderate (62.5–78%) to high or excellent (89–100%) for most scenarios. All but two assessments of content validity were excellent. In concurrent criterion validity assessments, DSRS was most closely associated with measures of radiological aspiration (penetration aspiration scale, Spearman rank rs = 0.49, p < 0.001) and swallowing (functional oral intake scale, FOIS, rs = −0.96, p < 0.001); weaker but statistically significant associations were seen with impairment, disability and dependency. A similar pattern of relationships was seen for predictive criterion validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was either “good” or “excellent”. Intra and inter-rater reliability were largely “excellent” (intraclass correlation >0.90). DSRS was sensitive to positive change during recovery (medians: 7, 4 and 1 at baseline and 2 and 13 weeks respectively) and in response to an intervention, pharyngeal electrical stimulation, in a published meta-analysis. The MCID was 1.0 and DSRS and FOIS scores may be estimated from each other. The DSRS appears to be a valid tool for grading the severity of swallowing impairment in patients with post stroke dysphagia and is appropriate for use in clinical research and clinical service delivery.

Introduction:Nurses and other nonspecialists in dysphagia are often trained to screen swallowing poststroke. There are many basic tools that test water only, they are usually conservative, and patients that fail the test remain nil by mouth until a speech and language therapy assessment. More comprehensive tests also allow nonspecialists to recommend modified oral intake. Little is known about the accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of these tests.Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to describe comprehensive swallowing tests that are available for use in acute stroke by nurses or other nonspecialists in dysphagia. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate accuracy and the clinical utility of the tests was considered. Searches and analyses, conducted by two reviewers, included MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and grey literature up to December 2018. Validated studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using QUADAS-2.Results: Twenty studies were included, describing five different tests, three of which had undergone validation. The tests varied in content, recommendations and use.There was no test superior in accuracy and clinical utility. Three studies validating the Gugging Swallow Screen provided sufficient data for meta-analysis, demonstrating high sensitivity; 96% (95% CI 0.90-0.99), but low specificity, 65% (95% CI 0.47-0.79), in line with many water swallow tests. Results should be interpreted with caution as study quality and applicability to the acute stroke population was poor. Conclusions:There is no comprehensive nurse dysphagia assessment tool that has robustly demonstrated good accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in acute stroke. Relevance to ClinicalPractice: Nurses and other clinicians can develop competencies in screening swallowing and assessing for safe oral intake in those with poststroke S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Benfield JK, Everton LF, Bath PM, England TJ. Accuracy and clinical utility of comprehensive dysphagia screening assessments in acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs.

Videofluoroscopy (VFS) is considered one of the gold-standard assessments of swallowing. Whilst guidelines for the application and conduct of VFS exist, their translation into clinical practice remain challenging. To build a greater understanding on how VFS clinics operate in the UK. A web-based survey was shared with speech and language therapists (SLTs) working in VFS clinics via professional networks and social media from October 2018 to January 2019. 101 responses were received. Two thirds of clinics were SLT-led, with the majority of clinics being run by two SLTs (73.6%) and a radiographer (95.5%) also known as radiologic technologists, diagnostic radiographers and medical radiation technologists. Less than 50% of radiographers had received specialist training. Around half of the clinics used a standard assessment or analysis protocol and 88.1% a rating scale. Set recipes for a range of textures were used in 53.4% of VFS clinics. Barium and water soluble contrasts were used, but only 15.8% knew the concentration of contrast used. The most commonly reported VFS pulse and frame rate was 15 per second. There was evidence of a lack of SLT knowledge regarding technical operation of VFS. Screening times varied from 0.7–10 min (median 3 min, IQR 2.5–3.5). Around 50% of respondents reported quality issues affecting analysis. In a survey of UK SLTs, translation of VFS guidance into practice was found to be limited which may impact on the quality of assessment and analysis. Collaboration with radiology, strengthening of guidelines and greater uptake of specialist training is deemed essential.