Do stroke clinical practice guideline recommendations for the intervention of thickened liquids for aspiration support evidence based decision making? A systematic review and narrative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Aspiration is a common sequela post stroke as a result of oropharyngeal dysphagia. It is primarily managed using the poorly empirically supported intervention of thickened liquids. Where evidence is limited, clinicians may rely on clinical practice guidelines to support decision making. The purpose of this systematic review and narrative synthesis was to evaluate the evidentiary bases of recommendations made by stroke clinical practice guidelines regarding the thickened liquids intervention. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on stroke clinical guidelines retrieved via searches conducted across a range of databases including Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library as well as through association websites. Guidelines were eligible for inclusion if they focused on adult stroke populations, made recommendations relating to the thickened liquid intervention and were published between January 2010 and December 2018. Four independent reviewers rated methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. Intervention recommendations were extracted and analysed using the Criteria for Levels of Evidence Reported from the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations and a novel framework examining the appropriateness of the supporting evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen clinical guidelines were included in the review. Methodological quality was variable with seven rating as good-excellent overall. Thirty recommendations regarding the intervention were extracted. Of these, 16 recommendations were classed as a recommendation to use the treatment and all guidelines made this recommendation. Much of the evidence used to scaffold recommendations did not directly support the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence base for the thickened liquid intervention, there was consensus among stroke guidelines in recommending it. This is despite limited empirical support. Furthermore, much of the evidence used to support recommendations was not appropriate, suggesting less than satisfactory evidence-based practices in formulating recommendations. In this case, clinical guidelines may not be reliable decision-support tools for facilitating clinical decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.151 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".