Predictors of complete oral feeding resumption after feeding tube placement in patients with stroke and dysphagia: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS: The aim was to synthesise and discuss predictors of complete oral feeding resumption after feeding tube placement in stroke patients with dysphagia. DESIGN: This was a systematic review, following the PRISMA 2020 checklist. DATA SOURCES: Eight databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, CNKI, WanFang and Vip) were searched for eligible studies from inception up to June 2021. REVIEW METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis was used to guide this systematic review. Any cross-sectional survey, longitudinal study, cohort study or case-control study that explored the recovery from tube feeding to complete oral feeding in patients with dysphagia after stroke was included. Qualitative studies, review articles, case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and appraised the studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment. Content analysis was used to categorise factors predicting feeding tube removal in stroke patients with dysphagia. RESULTS: This review included a total of 15 studies consisting of 1746 participants, of which 2 were case-control studies and 13 were cohort studies. Four studies were rated as having low risk of bias, and the other 11 had high risk of bias. The factors examined in the studies were categorised into demographic characteristics (age and sex), swallowing function (instrumental assessments and non-instrumental assessments), stroke characteristics (stroke severity, past stroke history and location of the stroke), functional status (cognitive function and physical function) and clinical measures (body mass index, geriatric nutritional risk index, white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level). CONCLUSIONS: The major limitation of this review is the failure to identify predictors of different tube feeding types. Although the current evidence is insufficient to support or oppose the predictive effect of any single factor, these factors are still valuable data for clinical staff that provide information that researchers can use in developing prognostic models. Rigorously designed and high-quality research is needed to further explore the predictive value of these factors. REGISTRATION: This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO [CRD42021272552]. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Healthcare providers should strengthen the monitoring of swallowing function in patients with stroke to promote complete oral feeding resumption. As the predictive value of the identified factors is still uncertain, large, well-designed, studies are needed to better clarify the importance of these predictors. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public was involved in the design, analysis, preparation or writing of this review.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».