PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this rapid review was to identify the level of evidence for a previously proposed theoretical framework to assess risks associated with prandial aspiration using the host as a central theme.
UNASSIGNED: Covidence software was used to search two databases (PubMed and Web of Science). PEDro scale was utilized to determine the quality of individual studies. Data points were evaluated for level of support and determined to be either conclusive, suggestive, unclear, or not supportive. Within each component of the framework, data points were clustered to determine the level of evidence as strong, moderate, insufficient, or negative.
UNASSIGNED: The rapid review process resulted in a limited number of publications investigating host variables impact on outcomes for patients with swallowing disorders. Overall, it yielded 937 articles, of which, upon review, 16 articles were selected for data extraction. There was a strong level of evidence to support that (a) as viscosity and density of aspirate increased, so did the likelihood of general medical complications, (b) poor oral care and oral health increase the risk of a pulmonary or general medical complication, and (c) the presence of oropharyngeal or laryngeal tubes increases the risk of a pulmonary consequence. There was moderate evidence to support the impact of amount and frequency of aspiration on outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to determine relationships for all other aspects of the BOLUS framework.
UNASSIGNED: Additional evidence to support the BOLUS framework was obtained; however, the number of studies was limited. A more thorough review such as a systematic review should be employed.
UNASSIGNED: Covidence software was used to search two databases (PubMed and Web of Science). PEDro scale was utilized to determine the quality of individual studies. Data points were evaluated for level of support and determined to be either conclusive, suggestive, unclear, or not supportive. Within each component of the framework, data points were clustered to determine the level of evidence as strong, moderate, insufficient, or negative.
UNASSIGNED: The rapid review process resulted in a limited number of publications investigating host variables impact on outcomes for patients with swallowing disorders. Overall, it yielded 937 articles, of which, upon review, 16 articles were selected for data extraction. There was a strong level of evidence to support that (a) as viscosity and density of aspirate increased, so did the likelihood of general medical complications, (b) poor oral care and oral health increase the risk of a pulmonary or general medical complication, and (c) the presence of oropharyngeal or laryngeal tubes increases the risk of a pulmonary consequence. There was moderate evidence to support the impact of amount and frequency of aspiration on outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to determine relationships for all other aspects of the BOLUS framework.
UNASSIGNED: Additional evidence to support the BOLUS framework was obtained; however, the number of studies was limited. A more thorough review such as a systematic review should be employed.
摘要：
■此快速审查的目的是确定先前提出的理论框架的证据水平，以评估以主机为中心主题的与餐时吸入相关的风险。
■Covidence软件用于搜索两个数据库(PubMed和WebofScience)。PEDro量表用于确定个体研究的质量。评估了数据点的支持程度，并确定为结论性的，暗示,不清楚,或不支持。在框架的每个组成部分中，对数据点进行聚类，以确定证据的强度，中度,不足,或否定。
快速审查过程导致研究宿主变量对吞咽障碍患者预后影响的出版物数量有限。总的来说,它发表了937篇文章，其中，经审查,选取16篇文章进行数据提取。有强有力的证据支持（a）随着抽吸物的粘度和密度增加，一般医疗并发症的可能性也是如此，（b）口腔护理和口腔健康不良会增加肺部或一般医疗并发症的风险，（c）口咽或喉管的存在增加了肺部后果的风险。有适度的证据支持误吸的数量和频率对结果的影响。没有足够的证据来确定BOLUS框架所有其他方面的关系。
■获得了支持BOLUS框架的其他证据；然而，研究数量有限.应采用更彻底的审查，如系统审查。
■Covidence软件用于搜索两个数据库(PubMed和WebofScience)。PEDro量表用于确定个体研究的质量。评估了数据点的支持程度，并确定为结论性的，暗示,不清楚,或不支持。在框架的每个组成部分中，对数据点进行聚类，以确定证据的强度，中度,不足,或否定。
快速审查过程导致研究宿主变量对吞咽障碍患者预后影响的出版物数量有限。总的来说,它发表了937篇文章，其中，经审查,选取16篇文章进行数据提取。有强有力的证据支持（a）随着抽吸物的粘度和密度增加，一般医疗并发症的可能性也是如此，（b）口腔护理和口腔健康不良会增加肺部或一般医疗并发症的风险，（c）口咽或喉管的存在增加了肺部后果的风险。有适度的证据支持误吸的数量和频率对结果的影响。没有足够的证据来确定BOLUS框架所有其他方面的关系。
■获得了支持BOLUS框架的其他证据；然而，研究数量有限.应采用更彻底的审查，如系统审查。
