SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

From DYMUS to DYPARK: Validation of a Screening Questionnaire for Dysphagia in Parkinson's Disease.

Dysphagia · 2021-07-15

DOI: 10.1007/s00455-021-10332-1PMID: 34264379

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Dysphagia is a common debilitating symptom in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), adequate screening of swallowing disorders is fundamental. The DYMUS questionnaire has shown very good characteristics for the screening of dysphagia in Multiple Sclerosis, and it might also prove useful for screening dysphagia in PD. The primary aim was to test and validate the DYMUS questionnaire in PD patients. This is an observational multicentric study involving 103 patients affected by PD. All subjects filled in the DYMUS and the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) questionnaires. A subgroup of patients (n = 53) underwent a fiber-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and their dysphagia was scored by means of the Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale (DOSS). DYMUS showed a relatively high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79). A significant positive correlation was found between the DYMUS and the EAT-10 scores (p < 0.001), while a negative correlation was found between the DYMUS and the DOSS scores (p < 0.001). DYMUS showed a good sensitivity and specificity compared to FEES for detecting dysphagia (area under the curve: 0.82, p < 0.001). The ROC curve analysis showed that a DYMUS score ≥ 6 represents a reliable cut-off for the risk of dysphagia. The DYMUS questionnaire proved to be a reliable screening tool to detect dysphagia in patients suffering from PD. It is easy to understand, it can be self-administered and therefore adequate for adoption in the clinical practice with the more convenient name of DYPARK.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.