Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wakasugi, Y. et al 2008 Japan | 204 adult inpatients and outpatients with suspected dysphagia of varying aetiologies. | 2B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in silent aspirators with trace aspirators included | Sensitivity was 0.67 and specificity was 0.90 | No sample size calculations specified. Researcher not blinded to reference standard test result (videofluoroscopy / nasendoscopy) and cough reflex test result. |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in silent aspirators with trace aspirators excluded | Sensitivity was 0.87 and specificity was 0.89. | ||||
Sato, M. et al 2012 Japan | 141 consecutive adults who complained of dysphagic symptoms with varying aetiologies. | 2B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in all participants (aspirators and non-aspirators) | Sensitivity was 0.81 and specificity was 0.65. | Query effect of nasal anesthesia used during FEES procedure (reference standard) on incidence of aspiration / penetration. No sample size calculations specified. |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in participants who aspirated | Sensitivity was 0.92 and specificity was 0.94. | ||||
Miles, A. et al 2013 New Zealand | 181 consecutive adults referred for videofluoroscopy or FEES over two sites, with varying aetiology. | 2B - Validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test for patients who aspirated on videofluoroscopy | Sensitivity was 0.71 and specificity was 0.71 | Split over two sites, with different reference standard tests. Evidence that the results from the two sites differed significantly. |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test for patients who aspirated on FEES | Sensitivity was 0.69 and specificity was 0.71 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test with trace aspirators (on FEES) removed from analyses | Sensitivity was 0.85 and specificity was 0.71 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test on full videofluoroscopy cohort, both aspirators and non-aspirators | Sensitivity was 0.71 and specificity was 0.6 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test on full FEES cohort, both aspirators and non-aspirators | Sensitivity was 0.69 and specificity was 0.71 | ||||
Sensitivity of cough reflex test on full FEES cohort, when trace aspirators are included in the non-aspirator group for analyses | Sensitivity was 0.75 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test (CRT) on aspirators on videofluoroscopy, when weak cough on CRT analysed as fail instead of pass | Sensitivity was 0.94 and specificity was 0.71 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test (CRT) on aspirators on FEES, when weak cough on CRT analysed as fail instead of pass | Sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.59 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test (CRT) on full videofluoroscopy cohort, when weak cough on CRT analysed as fail instead of pass | Sensitivity was 0.94 and specificity was 0.24 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test (CRT) on full FEES cohort, when weak cough on CRT analysed as fail instead of pass | Sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.55 | ||||
Lee, J. et al 2014 Korea | 101 females with dysphagia of central nervous system aetiology and 59 healthy female controls. | 2B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in detecting aspiration in all dysphagic patients | Sensitivity was 0.74 and specificity was 0.73 | Only females. Researches not blinded to result of reference standard or cough reflex test. No sample size calculations specified. |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in detecting silent aspiration in all dysphagic patients | Sensitivity was 0.87 and specificity was 0.70 | ||||
Wakasugi, Y. et al 2014 Japan | 160 patients with suspected dysphagia who underwent videofluoroscopy or FEES | 2B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in full cohort | Sensitivity was 0.86 and specificity was 0.71 | Researchers were not blinded to results of reference standard or cough reflex tests. Patients who aspirated large amounts and coughed, but did not cough on trace aspiration were not considered silent aspirators. No sample size calculations specified. recruitment methods unclear. Inclusion and exclusion criteria not defined. Unclear methodology making it difficult to reproduce. |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in patients who aspirated | Sensitivity was 0.86 and specificity was 0.69 | ||||
Guillen-Sola, A. et al 2015 Spain | 258 consecutive stroke patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation; 124 excluded (n= 134) | 1B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test for full cohort | Sensitivity was 0.19 and specificity was 0.71 | Exclusion criteria were extensive and potentially inappropriate. For example, patients deemed to be at 'low risk' of silent aspiration on bedside exam were excluded. Sample size calculations not specified. Poor external validity as only included stroke patients suitable for extensive rehabilitation. |
Kallesen, M. et al 2016 New Zealand | 106 recently extubated patients on critical care who had required invasive ventilation | 1B - validating cohort study | Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in detecting silent aspiration in full cohort where weak cough response was grouped with absent cough response | Sensitivity was 0.88 and specificity was 0.58 | |
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in full cohort where weak cough response was grouped with strong cough response | Sensitivity was 0.63 and specificity was 0.66 | ||||
Sensitivity and specificity of cough reflex test in detecting aspiration in full cohort where weak cough response was grouped with absent cough response | Sensitivity was 0.85 and specificity was 0.50 |