Quantitative Measurement of Swallowing Performance Using Iowa Oral Performance Instrument: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Biomedicines Vol. 10; no. 9; p. 2319
• Main Authors: Franciotti, Raffaella, Di Maria, Erica, D’Attilio, Michele, Aprile, Giuseppe, Cosentino, Federica Giulia, Perrotti, Vittoria
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.09.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Children; Deglutition; Dysphagia; Esophagus; Larynx; Meta-analysis; Motor activity; Older people; Patients; Physiological aspects; Swallowing; Systematic Review; Tongue; tongue endurance; tongue pressure; United States; United States > US; Iowa
• ISSN: 2227-9059; 2227-9059
• DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10092319

Swallowing is a complex but stereotyped motor activity aimed at serving two vital purposes: alimentary function and the protection of upper airways. Therefore, any impairment of the swallowing act can represent a significant clinical and personal problem that needs an accurate diagnosis by means of reliable and non-invasive techniques. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the reliability of the Iowa Oral Pressure Instrument (IOPI) in distinguishing healthy controls (HC) from patients affected by swallowing disorders or pathologies and conditions that imply dysphagia. A comprehensive search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. Overall, 271 articles were identified and, after a three-step screening, 33 case-control and interventional studies reporting IOPI measurements were included. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies resulted in being at a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis on case-control studies showed that maximum tongue pressure (MIP) values were always higher in HC than in patients, with an overall effect of the MIP difference of 18.2 KPa (17.7–18.7 KPa CI). This result was also confirmed when the sample was split into adults and children, although the MIP difference between HC and patients was greater in children than in adults (21.0 vs. 15.4 KPa in the MIP mean difference overall effect, respectively). Tongue endurance (TE) showed conflicting results among studies, with an overall effect among studies near zero (0.7 s, 0.2–1.1 s CI) and a slight tendency toward higher TE values in HC than in patients. Among the intervention studies, MIP values were higher after treatment than before, with a better outcome after the experimental tongue training exercise than traditional treatments (the MIP mean difference overall effect was 10.8 and 2.3 KPa, respectively). In conclusion, MIP values can be considered as a reliable measure of swallowing function in adults and in children, with a more marked MIP difference between HC and patients for the children population. MIP measures in patients are also able to detect the best outcome on the tongue function after the training exercise compared to traditional training.