Dysphagia Rehabilitation intervention Strategies in Moderate-Severe Acquired Brain injury : a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: To conduct a scoping review of all available literature on interventions for dysphagia rehabilitation among individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI), to answer the research question: What literature is available investigating dysphagia-specific interventions for moderate-severe non-stroke ABI?Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published in English up to July 2018. Studies were included if: (1) a dysphagia rehabilitation intervention was provided to participants, (2) any of the participants had moderate to severe non-stroke ABI, and (3) there were nu22651 adult (u226518 years) participants. For each study meeting inclusion criteria, data on author(s), year, country of publication, study design, sample size, demographic information (age, gender, injury etiology), intervention type, comparators, and outcome measures were extracted. Levels of evidence were assigned to each study using the modified Sackett scale. Results: Among the 16 studies which met our inclusion criteria, eight studies had a population of <50% ABI, three had >50% ABI, and five included an unspecified percentage of ABI. Eleven studies (68.75%) were published in the last six years (2012-2018), with the five remaining studies (31.25%) published more than ten years ago (1990-2007). Fourteen studies were published as journal articles, and two were conference abstracts. Four studies originated in the United States, three from Spain, two from each of the following countries, Canada, Korea, and Japan, and one each from South Africa, Germany, and Italy. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided level 1b evidence, six studies (3 RCTs, 3 prospective controlled trials) were level 2 evidence, six (3 post-test, 3 pre-post) were level 4 evidence, and two case studies provided level 5 evidence. Nine different interventions were investigated for dysphagia rehabilitation, with electrical stimulation, individualized management programs, and diet manipulation being the most common interventions. Eleven unique outcome measures were used overall, which crossed several domains and evaluated various outcomes including swallowing function, nutritional status, and aspiration. Conclusions: The literature investigating dysphagia rehabilitation interventions for non-stroke ABI is limited, with wide variability in terms of intervention types, interventional study designs, study population injury etiology, and outcome assessment across studies. Although a growth in the number of dysphagia studies has been observed within recent years, there remains an important gap in the literature pertaining to dysphagia rehabilitation in non-stroke ABI populations.
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 | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».