Evidence Hub

The characteristics of eating, drinking and oro-pharyngeal swallowing difficulties associated with repaired oesophageal atresia/tracheo-oesophageal fistula: a systematic review and meta-proportional analysis

A. Stewart, R. Govender, S. Eaton, Christina H. Smith, P. de Coppi, Jo Wray

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 2024

9 citations

Abstract

Introduction Eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties are commonly reported morbidities for individuals born with OA/TOF. This study aimed to determine the nature and prevalence of eating, drinking and oro-pharyngeal swallowing difficulties reported in this population. Method A systematic review and meta-proportional analysis were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42020207263). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science databases and grey literature were searched. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted relating to swallow impairment, use of mealtime adaptations and eating and drinking-related quality of life. Quantitative data were summarised using narrative and meta-proportional analysis methods. Qualitative data were synthesised using a meta-aggregation approach. Where quantitative and qualitative data described the same phenomenon, a convergent segregated approach was used to synthesise data. Results Sixty-five studies were included. Six oro-pharyngeal swallow characteristics were identified, and pooled prevalence calculated: aspiration (24%), laryngeal penetration (6%), oral stage dysfunction (11%), pharyngeal residue (13%), nasal regurgitation (7%), delayed swallow initiation (31%). Four patient-reported eating/drinking difficulties were identified, and pooled prevalence calculated: difficulty swallowing solids (45%), difficulty swallowing liquids (6%), odynophagia (30%), coughing when eating (38%). Three patient-reported mealtime adaptations were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free