MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195052497 · doi:10.1177/21925682211035714

A Systematic Review of Definitions for Dysphagia and Dysphonia in Patients Treated Surgically for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2021· review· en· W3195052497 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Tetreault, Stefan Lange, Silky Chotai, Mercedes Lupo, Michael T. Kryshtalskyj, Jefferson R. Wilson, Allan R. Martin, Benjamin M. Davies, Anick Nater, Clinton J. Devin, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaSwallowingSurgeryMyelopathyComplicationPerioperative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. Surgical decompression for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is associated with perioperative complications, including difficulty or discomfort with swallowing (dysphagia) as well as changes in sound production (dysphonia). This systematic review aims to (1) outline how dysphagia and dysphonia are defined in the literature and (2) assess the quality of definitions using a novel 4-point rating system. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted for studies that reported on dysphagia, dysphonia or other related complications of DCM surgery. Data extracted included study design, surgical details, as well as definitions and rates of surgical complications. A 4-point rating scale was developed to assess the quality of definitions for each complication. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,673 unique citations, 11 of which met eligibility criteria and were summarized in this review. Defined complications included odynophagia (n = 1), dysphagia (n = 11), dysphonia (n = 2), perioperative swelling complications (n = 2), and soft tissue swelling (n = 3). Rates of dysphagia varied substantially (0.0%-50.0%) depending on whether this complication was patient-reported (4.4%); patient-reported using a modified Swallowing Quality of Life questionnaire (43.1%) or the Bazaz criteria (8.8%-50.0%); or diagnosed using an extensive protocol consisting of clinical assessment, a bedside swallowing test, evaluation by a speech and language pathologist and a modified barium swallowing test/fiberoptic endoscopy (42.9%). The reported incidences of dysphonia also ranged significantly from 0.6% to 38.0%. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variability in reported rates of dysphagia and dysphonia due to differences in data collection methods, diagnostic strategies, and definitions. Consolidation of nomenclature will improve evaluation of the overall safety of surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207