4.5 Article

The Eating and Drinking Ability Classification System in a population-based sample of preschool children with cerebral palsy

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 647-654

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13403

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [1018264 - KAB, APP1105038 RB, 569605, 465128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo determine (1) the reproducibility of the Eating and Drinking Ability Classification System (EDACS); (2) EDACS classification distribution in a population-based cohort with cerebral palsy (CP); and (3) the relationships between the EDACS and clinical mealtime assessment, other classifications, and health outcomes. MethodThis was a cross-sectional population-based cohort study of 170 children with CP at 3 years to 5 years (mean 57.6mo, standard deviation [SD] 8.3mo; 105 males, n=65 females). Functional abilities were representative of a population sample (Gross Motor Function Classification System level I=74, II=34, III=21, IV=18, V=23). The EDACS was the primary classification of mealtime function. The Dysphagia Disorders Survey was the clinical mealtime assessment. Gross motor function was classified using the Gross Motor Function Classification System. ResultsEDACS classification had 88.3% intrarater agreement (=0.84, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.95; p<0.001) and 51.7% interrater agreement (=0.36, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.79; p<0.001). In total, 56.5% of children were classified as EDACS level I. There was a strong stepwise relationship between the Dysphagia Disorders Survey and EDACS (r=0.96, p<0.001). Parental stress (odds ratio=1.3, p=0.05) and feeding tubes (odds ratio=6.4, p<0.001) were significantly related to more limited function on the EDACS. InterpretationThe EDACS presents a viable adjunct to clinical assessment of feeding skills in children with CP for use in surveillance trials and clinical practice. A rating addendum would be a useful contribution to the tool to enhance reproducibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据