We have located links that may give you full text access.
Insights Into Oropharyngeal Dysphagia From Administrative Data and Clinical Registries: A Literature Review.
Purpose: The call for data-driven health care has been bolstered by the digitization of medical records, quality initiatives, and payment reform. Administrative databases and clinical registries are increasingly being used to study oropharyngeal dysphagia and to facilitate data-driven decision making. The objective of this work was to summarize key findings, etiologies studied, data sources used, study objectives, and quality of evidence of all original research articles that have investigated oropharyngeal dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia using administrative or clinical registry data to date.
Method: A literature search was completed in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar (January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2017). Each study that met inclusion criteria was rated for quality of evidence on a 5-point scale.
Results: Eighty-four research articles were included in the final analysis (n = 221-1,649,871). Over the past 20 years, the number of new publications in this area has quintupled. Most of the administrative database and clinical registry studies of dysphagia have been retrospective cohort studies and cross-sectional studies and limited to quality of evidence levels of 3-4. In these studies, much has been learned about risk factors for dysphagia and pneumonia in defined populations and health care costs and usage. Little has been gleaned from these studies regarding swallowing physiology or dysphagia management.
Conclusions: Investigators are just beginning to develop the methods to study oropharyngeal dysphagia using administrative data and clinical registries. Future research is needed in all areas, from the fundamental issue of how to identify individuals with dysphagia with high sensitivity in these data sets to evaluating treatment effectiveness.
Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6066515.
Method: A literature search was completed in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar (January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2017). Each study that met inclusion criteria was rated for quality of evidence on a 5-point scale.
Results: Eighty-four research articles were included in the final analysis (n = 221-1,649,871). Over the past 20 years, the number of new publications in this area has quintupled. Most of the administrative database and clinical registry studies of dysphagia have been retrospective cohort studies and cross-sectional studies and limited to quality of evidence levels of 3-4. In these studies, much has been learned about risk factors for dysphagia and pneumonia in defined populations and health care costs and usage. Little has been gleaned from these studies regarding swallowing physiology or dysphagia management.
Conclusions: Investigators are just beginning to develop the methods to study oropharyngeal dysphagia using administrative data and clinical registries. Future research is needed in all areas, from the fundamental issue of how to identify individuals with dysphagia with high sensitivity in these data sets to evaluating treatment effectiveness.
Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6066515.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app