Comparison of two methods to categorize thickened liquids for dysphagia management in a clinical care setting context: The Bostwick consistometer and the IDDSI Flow Test. Are we talking about the same concept?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Bostwick consistometer and the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) Flow Test are both proposed methods to measure and categorize thickened liquids for dysphagia management. The objectives were to: (a) compare the Bostwick consistometer reference values used in clinical settings and the IDDSI reference values of thickened liquids suggested for nutrition care plans in the management of dysphagia when measuring commercially available preprepared thickened liquids; (b) explore the relationship between the two methods; (c) assess the interchangeability; (d) document the intra-rater reliability. Preprepared thickened liquids (n = 32) were measured twice with the Bostwick consistometer and 3 times with the IDDSI Flow Test, using a rigorous methodology. A registered dietitian nutritionist and a registered nutrition and dietetic technician performed the measurements. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to explore the relationship between the two methods. Using a linear regression equation, back-calculations of the IDDSI Flow Test values were done, based on the experimental Bostwick results. Interchangeability was assessed by documenting the level of agreement between the results with a Bland and Altman graphical analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficients calculation and a Bland and Altman graphical analysis were performed to assess reliability. The strong correlation (r = -.93, p < .001) between the IDDSI Flow Test and the Bostwick consistometer measurements suggests that they measure flow rate in a similar manner, but not exactly the same, as confirmed with the Bland and Altman graphical analysis. Thus, they produced results that are not interchangeable. However, both tests show excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥ 0.99) when using a rigorous methodology. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Thickened liquids are used to manage oropharyngeal dysphagia. Clinicians need to provide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) support in the selection or production of thickened liquids as well as staff training or patient education regarding these products. Methods and classification have been proposed to measure and categorize thickened liquids for dysphagia management, such as the line spread test, the Bostwick consistometer method, and the IDDSI Flow Test. Although empirical, these methods are more accessible to clinicians than viscometer or rheometer assessments. Clinicians need to understand the limitations of these techniques as neither appear to capture the full extent of consistency for potential beverages available on the market or produced in-house. In this article, we compare the Bostwick consistometer and the IDDSI Flow Test methods and classifications and propose a standard operating procedure in order to maximize the quality of results. We point out the large variations in consistency levels of commercial preprepared thickened liquids in light of the absence of evidence of clinical outcomes associated with either proposed methods or consistency classifications.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,064 | 0,143 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».