Thickened Liquids as a Treatment for Children With Dysphagia and Associated Adverse Effects

Abstract

Thickened liquids are a common treatment for dysphagia; however, little is known about their effects in children. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the state and quality of evidence for the use of thickened liquids on swallowing physiology, oral feeding, weight gain/growth, hydration, and pulmonary health outcomes in children with dysphagia. Another aim was to identify any increased occurrence of adverse effects that may be associated with their use in all children, not just those with dysphagia. A total of 24 electronic databases were systematically searched. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for methodological quality by 2 reviewers and vetted by a third. In total, 22 studies were included. Six studies, with significant methodological limitations, examined the effects of thickened liquids on swallowing physiology or pulmonary health outcomes and reported mixed findings. Sixteen studies examined adverse effects and indicated that among a select pediatric population with gastroesophageal reflux, no significant increase in the rate of adverse effects from the use of thickened liquids was noted. Results of this review highlight the insufficient evidence base for this popular treatment option. Additional experimental research is warranted to understand the efficacy and effectiveness of thickened liquid use in the pediatric population.

An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Directional Microphones and Digital Noise Reduction Hearing Aids in School-Age Children With Hearing Loss

“…Full-text versions of each included study were independently reviewed by the second and third authors, who have educational training and previous experience (e.g., Gosa, Schooling, & Coleman, 2011; Roush, Frymark, Venediktov, & Wang, 2011); these authors appraised experimental research for quality. Each author rated the quality of the study on up to seven appraisal criteria using an adaptation of the ASHA levels-of-evidence scheme (Cherney, Patterson, Raymer, Frymark, & Schooling, 2008; Fey et al, 2010; Mullen, 2007).…”

An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Frequency Lowering in Hearing Aids for School-Age Children With Hearing Loss

“…The first author provided input regarding the appropriateness of the scheme as it pertained to HA research. The raters both had previous experience (e.g., Gosa, Schooling, & Coleman, 2011; Rousch, Frymark, Venediktov, & Wang, 2011) and training evaluating the methodological quality of scientific literature. The appraisal criteria were as follows: (a) an adequate description of study protocol (i.e., sufficient detail provided for replication), (b) assessor blinding, (c) an adequate description of random sampling of participants, (d) randomization to condition or sequence of conditions, (e) counterbalancing of the order of conditions (applicable only to within-subject designs), (f) reporting of p values (or the provision of data to calculate that statistic), and (g) reporting of effect sizes and their confidence intervals (or the provision of data to calculate those statistics).…”

An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Amplitude Compression in Hearing Aids for School-Age Children With Hearing Loss

“…and third (J.J.C.) authors, both of whom had educational training and previous experience (e.g., Gosa, Schooling, & Coleman, 2011; Roush, Frymark, Venediktov, & Wang, 2011) assessing research quality. An adaptation of ASHA’s levels-of-evidence scheme (Cherney, Patterson, Raymer, Frymark, & Schooling, 2008; Fey et al, 2010; Mullen, 2007), consisting of seven appraisal criteria, was used to rate quality.…”