Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

Järvenpää, Pia; Kuuskoski, Jonna; Pietarinen, Petra; Markkanen‐Leppänen, Mari; Freiberg, Hanna; Ruuskanen, Miia; Rekola, Jami; Ilmarinen, Taru; Kinnari, Teemu J.; Autio, Timo J.; Penttilä, Elina; Muttilainen, Marika S.; Laaksonen, Annika; Oksanen, Lotta‐Maria; Geneid, Ahmed; Aaltonen, Leena-Maija

doi:10.1007/s00455-021-10362-9

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study demonstrated a very high internal consistency of the Slovak EAT10 ® . Similar results have been reported by foreign adaptations of EAT10 ® ; Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.87 [ 27 ] to 0.963 [ 22 , 28 , 29 ]. The same Cronbach’s α as for the Slovak version of EAT10 ® was calculated for the German adaptation of EAT10 ® [ 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Frajková

Paouris

Naďo³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The objective of the study was the language adaptation and verification of psychometric properties of the Slovak version of the EAT10® questionnaire. Methods: The original English version of the questionnaire was translated into the Slovak language. The research group included 136 control participants and 51 dysphagic patients. Test–retest reliability, item analysis, internal consistency, construct and clinical validity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to verify the psychometric properties of the Slovak EAT10®. Results: The internal consistency assessed with Cronbach’s alpha is excellent (α = 0.94). Statistical analysis of the Slovak version of EAT10® showed excellent reliability (0.91, p < 0.001) in the test–retest. Through item-to-total correlation, we found out that all items significantly correlated with the overall score in EAT10®. Factor analysis proved a high construct validity. The EAT10® questionnaire was able to reveal a latent variable: a swallowing disorder, which was affecting a group of patients. The clinical validity results confirmed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the control and dysphagic groups (z = −10.30; p < 0.001). By dividing the dysphagic group into four subgroups (Head and Neck Cancer, Extraesophageal Reflux, Iatrogenic, and Neurological) there were nonsignificant differences in the mean scores of the subgroups. The cut-off value for the Slovak EAT10® is three points. Conclusion: The Slovak EAT10® is a valid and reliable tool designed for the subjective assessment of oropharyngeal dysphagia in patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Frajková

Paouris

Naďo³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The meta-analysis included 1064 subjects from 7 countries, including healthy people and people at high risk for dysphagia, such as those with PD [ 52 ], stroke [ 34 ], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [ 53 ], aging [ 49 ], neurodegenerative diseases [ 36 , 49 ], demyelinating disease [ 44 ], and gastroesophageal reflux disease [ 44 ]. Four studies [ 34 , 44 , 49 , 53 ] used VFSS and three studies [ 36 , 47 , 52 ] used FEES as the gold standard for reporting the sensitivity and specificity of EAT-10. Cross-sectional studies [ 34 , 36 , 44 , 52 , 53 ] and case–control studies [ 47 , 49 ] were included.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acknowledgements Diagnostic accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in screening dysphagia: a meta-analysis registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROS-PERO), number CRD42020164655. [47] 2016 Abu-Ghanem 0.96 0.98 Spanish [48] 2016 Giraldo-Cadavid 0.91 0.94 Swedish [40] 2016 Möller 0.88 0.90 Turkish [49] 2016 Demir 0.90 0.91 a Pediatric [50] 2018 Serel Arslan 0.87 NM Greek [45] 2018 Printza 0.96 NM Hebrew [44] 2019 Shapira-Galitz 0.93 0.82 a French [46] 2019 Lechien 0.95 0.92 a Finland [51] 2021 Järvenpää 0.84 0.93…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each item corresponds to 5 levels of difficulty from "no problem" to "serious problem," with a total score of 0 to 40. EAT-10 has good internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [11,34,36,37,39,40,[42][43][44][45][46][47]. It has been proven to be useful in screening dysphagia in the oropharyngeal and esophageal phases [11,44] and for swallowing disorders in a healthy population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EAT-10 is low-risk for general practitioners, nurses, and other healthcare providers and requires no specialized training. However, there are differences in the reported sensitivity and specificity of EAT-10, and the best cutoff value remains controversial [ 44 , 47 , 49 ]. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of EAT-10 screening for dysphagia by meta-analysis, when FEES or VFSS were used as the gold standard and identified the optimal EAT-10 cutoff value to better guide clinical application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in Screening Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang

et al. 2022

Dysphagia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) is used worldwide to screen people quickly and easily at high risk for swallowing disorders. However, the best EAT-10 cutoff value is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we estimated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3 for screening dysphagia. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP databases from May 2008 to March 2022. The meta-analysis included 7 studies involving 1064 subjects from 7 different countries. Two studies were classified as high quality and five studies as medium quality. With an EAT-10 cutoff value of 2, using flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing or video fluoroscopic swallowing study as the gold standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.93), 0.59 (95% CI 0.39–0.77), 2.17 (95% CI 1.38–3.42), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13–0.29), and 11.49 (95% CI 5.86–22.53), respectively. When a cutoff of 3 was used, these values were 0.85 (95% CI 0.68–0.94), 0.82 (95% CI 0.65–0.92), 4.84 (95% CI 1.72–13.50), 0.18 (95% CI 0.07–0.46), and 26.24 (95% CI 5.06–135.95), respectively. Using EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3, the areas under the curve were 0.873 (95% CI 0.82–0.93) and 0.903 (95% CI 0.88–0.93), respectively, showing good diagnostic performance. EAT-10 can be used as a preliminary screening tool for dysphagia. However, a cutoff of 3 is recommended for EAT-10 due to better diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

The Water Swallow Test and EAT‐10 as Screening Tools for Referral to Videofluoroscopy

Kuuskoski,

Vanhatalo,

Rekola

et al. 2023

The Laryngoscope

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundVideofluoroscopy (VFS) is the gold standard in evaluating dysphagia. Water swallow tests (WST) and the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT‐10) are commonly used in dysphagia screening. We aimed to determine the feasibility of WST and EAT‐10 as screening tools for referral to VFS.MethodsPatients (n = 150, median age: 70.0 years, range: 19–92 years, 58.7% female) referred to VFS completed the WST and EAT‐10 before the examination. In the WST, we evaluated both the qualitative parameters (coughing, possible change in voice) and quantitative parameters (average drinking bolus size, swallowing speed). Correlations of EAT‐10 total scores and WST parameters to the VFS findings were analyzed both individually and combined.ResultsIn the WST, the most specific (89.7%) predictor of normal VFS findings was the absence of coughing, and the most sensitive (79.1%) parameter to predict abnormal findings was a bolus size of ≤20 mL. Using a combination of coughing and a bolus size ≤20 mL (simplified WST), the sensitivity of predicting abnormal findings increased to 83.5%. The most sensitive (84.6%) predictor of penetration/aspiration was failing any parameter in the WST. Lack of coughing indicated an absence of penetration/aspiration with an 82.5% specificity. Swallowing speed or combining the EAT‐10 results with the WST results did not enhance the sensitivity or specificity of the WST for predicting the VFS results.ConclusionsCoughing and average drinking bolus size are the most important parameters in WST when screening for referral to VFS, whereas the swallowing speed does not seem to be useful. The WST is superior to EAT‐10 in predicting VFS findings.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 2023

show abstract

Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in Screening Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Water Swallow Test and EAT‐10 as Screening Tools for Referral to Videofluoroscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About