Cervical Auscultation for Detecting Oropharyngeal Aspiration in Paediatric and Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

• Published in: Clinical otolaryngology Vol. 49; no. 6; pp. 713 - 724
• Main Authors: Cron, Annelise C., David, Michael, Orbell‐Smith, Jane, Chang, Anne B., Weir, Kelly A., Frakking, Thuy T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.11.2024
• Subjects: Accuracy; aspiration; Auscultation; cervical auscultation; Criteria; deglutition; Diagnostic systems; Diagnostic tests; dysphagia; Meta-analysis; Pediatrics; Population studies; Populations; Reviews; Search methods; Swallowing; Vibrations; deglutition; dysphagia; swallowing; cervical auscultation; aspiration
• ISSN: 1749-4478; 1749-4486; 1749-4486
• DOI: 10.1111/coa.14202

ABSTRACT Background Cervical auscultation (CA) involves listening to swallowing and respiratory sounds and/or vibrations to detect oropharyngeal aspiration (OPA). CA has shown promising diagnostic test accuracy when used with the clinical swallowing examination and is gaining popularity in clinical practise. There has not been a review to date analysing the accuracy of CA in paediatric and adult populations with meta‐analyses. Objectives To determine the accuracy of CA in detecting OPA in paediatric and adult populations, when compared to instrumental assessments. Search Methods Databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AustHealth, Cochrane and Web of Science. The search was restricted between 01 October 2012 and 01 October 2022. Selection Criteria Inclusion criteria included (a) all clinical populations of all ages, (b) who have had an instrumental assessment and (c) CA. All study types were included. Data Collection and Analysis Studies were reviewed independently by two authors. The methodological quality of the studies was analysed using the QUADAS‐2. Main Results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for this review and meta‐analyses. The pooled diagnostic performance of CA in detecting OPA was 0.91 for sensitivity and 0.79 for specificity. The area under the curve summary receiver operating curve (sROC) was estimated to be 0.86, thereby indicating good discrimination of OPA. Most studies scored high for risk of bias in at least one domain in the QUADAS‐2, likely attributed to a lack of high‐quality prospectively designed studies. Conclusions There are promising diagnostic test accuracies for the use of CA in detection of OPA. Future research could include using CA in specific clinical populations and settings, and identifying standardised criteria for CA.