Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 18;2021(10):CD012679. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012679.pub2

Campbell 2016.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Convenience sample
Patient characteristics and setting Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of stroke or TIA; admitted between 8:30am and 4:30pm; no change in initial NIHSS score between screening by the nurse and evaluation by the speech pathologist
Exclusion criteria: non‐stroke and non‐TIA admissions; stroke and TIA admissions after 4:30pm; NIHSS score change from initial screening by the nurse, and subsequent evaluation performed by speech pathologist
Setting: 1 × neuroscience unit ‐ part of a Joint Commission Disease Specific certified stroke centre
Index tests NBDS
Target condition and reference standard(s) Dysphagia
SLP: expert assessment
Flow and timing 3 patients not screened by Nurse 2
Interventions between index/reference tests: not reported
Interval between index and reference tests: < 1 hour
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Unclear    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
Was a two‐gate design avoided? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Unclear risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Unclear    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Unclear risk