MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2160363934 · doi:10.11124/01938924-200907170-00001

Thickened fluids for people with dementia in residential aged care facilities: a comprehensive systematic review

2009· article· en· W2160363934 sur OpenAlexaff
Sonia Hines, Judy McCrow, Jenny Abbey, Samuel Gledhill

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueDysphagia Assessment and Management
Établissements canadiensVictoria Park
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDementiaDysphagiaMedicineOlder peopleMedical prescriptionGerontologyNursingSurgeryPathologyDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Dementia is an umbrella term for a large group of conditions that cause a progressive decline in a person's functioning. Dementia is a progressive condition which causes cognitive and functional decline and, as part of this, the ability to swallow diminishes, a condition known as dysphagia[1]. Aspiration of fluids is a common result of dysphagia and is a significant problem, both in terms of its effect on the patient and its cost to the community. In order to increase the viscosity of drinking fluids and thereby minimise the likelihood of aspiration, people with dementia living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are often prescribed thickened fluids. Objectives The overall objective of this comprehensive systematic review was to establish best practice in relation to thickened fluids for people living in RACFs to: establish factors associated with the prescription and administration of thickened fluid for people with dementia living in RACFs; assess the effectiveness of administering thickened fluids for people with dementia in RACFs in terms of adequate hydration, mortality, morbidity and patient comfort; identify attitudes of people with dementia in RACFs and their family/carers regarding the administration of thickened fluids; and identify attitudes of staff regarding the administration of thickened fluids for people with dementia in RACFs. Search Strategy English language articles published from 1995 to 2008 were sought in a comprehensive search of an extensive range of databases, online sources and unpublished literature. Selection criteria The review considered all types of studies which included the oral administration of fluids with the addition of commercial thickening agent to the liquid which may include: energy/nutritional supplements, juice, water, tea, coffee, cordial, milk drinks, etc., for the purpose of increasing the viscosity of the liquid to minimise the chance of aspiration for persons with dementia in residential aged care. Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of each study for inclusion into the review, critically appraised the study quality and extracted data using standardised tools. Any disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Main findings Nine papers[2-10] recommend the use of thickened fluids as a strategy to maintain adequate fluid intake for demented persons with dysphagia in RACFs. (Level III.c - IV evidence) Four papers[1, 4, 8, 9] directly recommend thickened fluids as an effective method of maintaining hydration for persons with dementia. (Level IV evidence) One study[11] found that the use of thickened fluids was generally acceptable to older persons in the event of dementia and dysphagia and was more acceptable to the participants than the prospect of enteral feeding. (Level IV evidence) One study found that the practice of adding infant cereals to fluids as a thickening agent cannot be recommended due to concerns over dehydration and folate deficiency[12]. (Level IV evidence) Conclusion There appears to be little specific data on the effectiveness of thickened fluids for people with dementia in residential aged care. Most included studies had mixed populations of demented and non-demented residents, making dementia-specific results impossible to quantify. From the retrieved data, evidence-based best practices cannot be concluded. It may, however, be cautiously inferred that thickened fluids may be effective for residents with dementia if set guidelines are instituted.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,731
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,646

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,433
Écart entre enseignants0,367 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetDysphagia Assessment and ManagementTravaux en français237 207