Identifying High‐Quality Non‐Instrumental Dysphagia Screening Tools for Detection of Adult Dysphagia Case in Acute‐Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: As patients nowadays tend to have multiple diseases and complex medical histories, our aim was to identify high‐quality, non‐instrumental dysphagia screening tools used for the detection of adult dysphagia cases in all disease categories in acute‐care settings. Method: A literature search was conducted in five databases from each database's earliest inception to 31 July 2021 and guided by five keywords: 'dysphagia', 'deglutition', 'screening', 'test' and 'measure'. Without limiting the search in any specific disease category, reviewers assessed original studies and identified tools if they had been validated against instrumental evaluations and if they had been designed as a pass–fail procedure to screen whether dysphagia is absent or present. We further excluded any tool if it was (1) for pediatric focus, or (2) a patient self‐report questionnaire. All final tool candidates underwent a methodological quality appraisal using the Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2). Result: Out of 195 studies with 165 tools identified, 20 tool candidates underwent QUADAS‐2 review. We found six high‐quality, non‐instrumental screening tools for detecting adult dysphagia cases in acute‐care settings, including the Yale Swallow Protocol, Gugging Swallowing Screen, Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (both English and Portuguese versions), Sapienza Global Bedside Evaluation of Swallowing and Two‐Step Thickened Water Test. These high‐quality tools were developed primarily for patients with stroke. Only Yale Swallow Protocol was originally tested for heterogeneous populations with stroke, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, oesophageal surgery, neurosurgery and head‐and‐neck cancer. Conclusions: The results highlight the gap in the unavailability of high‐quality dysphagia screening tool in several emerged high‐risk populations including elderly inpatients, or patients following endotracheal extubation. Further research is needed to determine whether these six tools can be effectively applied across different high‐risk populations in acute‐care settings to screen for cases finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]