ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE(S): The objective of this study was to characterize the level of agreement between three manometers: (1) Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI)-the reference standard for tongue, lip, and cheek strength assessments; (2) MicroRPM Respiratory Pressure Meter (MicroRPM)-the reference standard for respiratory strength assessments; and (3) Digital Pressure Manometer (DPM)-an alternative, low-cost pressure testing manometer. METHODS: Manual pressures were simultaneously applied to the IOPI and DPM, and to the MicroRPM and DPM, within a controlled laboratory setting. Agreement in pressure readings were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Lin's concordance correlation, and Bland-Altman Plots. Agreement was interpreted as "poor" if ρc < 0.90, "moderate" if ρc = 0.90 - < 0.95, "substantial" if ρc = 0.95 - < 0.99, and "excellent" if ρc ≥ 0.99. RESULTS: Differences in pressure readings between the DPM and clinical reference standards were consistently present yet highly predictable. There was a median absolute difference of 2.0-3.9 kPa between the IOPI and DPM, and 4.5-9.8 cm H2O between the MicroRPM and DPM. Lin's concordance revealed "substantial" agreement between the IOPI and DPM (ρc = 0.98) and the MicroRPM and DPM (ρc = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The DPM revealed higher pressure readings when compared to the IOPI and MicroRPM. However, differences in pressure readings were relatively small, highly predictable, and yielded substantial overall agreement. These findings suggest the DPM may be a valid, lower-cost alternative for objective assessments of tongue, lip, cheek, and respiratory muscle strength. Future research should expand on the present findings in clinical patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2024.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES) and Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (DIGEST-FEES) are two complimentary methods for assessing swallowing during FEES. Whereas VASES is intended to facilitate trial-level ratings of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration, DIGEST-FEES is intended to facilitate protocol-level impairment grades of swallowing safety and efficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES impairment grades. METHODS: DIGEST-FEES grades were blindly analyzed from 50 FEES - first using the original DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50) and then again using a VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50). Weighted Kappa (κw) and absolute agreement (%) were used to assess the relationship between the original DIGEST-FEES grades and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Spearman's correlations assessed the relationship between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades with measures of construct validity. RESULTS: Substantial agreement (κw = 0.76-0.83) was observed between the original and VASES-derived grading methods, with 60-62% of all DIGEST-FEES grades matching exactly, and 92-100% of DIGEST-FEES grades within one grade of each other. Furthermore, the strength of the relationships between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades and measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.78) were similar to the strength of the relationships between original DIGEST-FEES grades and the same measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.83). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study demonstrate substantial agreement between original and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES also appears to maintain the same level of construct validity established with the original DIGEST-FEES. Therefore, clinicians and researchers may consider using VASES to increase the transparency and standardization of DIGEST-FEES ratings. Future research should seek to replicate these findings and explore the simultaneous use of VASES and DIGEST-FEES in a greater sampling of raters and across other patient populations.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This systematic review represents an update to previous reviews of the literature addressing behavioral management of respiratory/phonatory dysfunction in individuals with dysarthria due to neurodegenerative disease. METHOD: Multiple electronic database searches and hand searches of prominent speech-language pathology journals were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. RESULTS: The search yielded 1,525 articles, from which 88 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed by two blinded co-investigators. A large range of therapeutic approaches have been added to the evidence base since the last review, including expiratory muscle strength training, singing, and computer- and device-driven programs, as well as a variety of treatment modalities, including teletherapy. Evidence for treatment in several different population groups-including cerebellar ataxia, myotonic dystrophy, autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay, Huntington's disease, multiple system atrophy, and Lewy body dementia-were added to the current review. Synthesis of evidence quality provided strong evidence in support of only one behavioral intervention: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Program (LSVT LOUD) in people with Parkinson's disease. No other treatment approach or population included in this review demonstrated more than limited evidence, reflecting that these approaches/populations require urgent further examination. CONCLUSION: Suggestions about where future research efforts could be significantly strengthened and how clinicians can apply research findings to their practice are provided. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24964473.