Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form - version II: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Minimal Eating Observation Form - Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form - II, the Volume - Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3). RESULTS: In total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct. CONCLUSIONS: The MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons' subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration.

No gender differences in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Gender difference in the incidence of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is well-known as more men than women are affected. However, knowledge of gender differences is lacking for most other aspects of EoE. In this population-based adult EoE cohort, the aim was to study if gender differences exist with respect to 1) clinical phenotype, 2) treatment response and 3) complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective, registry-based DanEoE cohort study of 236 adult patients with EoE (178 adult men and 58 adult women) diagnosed in 2007-2017 in the North Denmark Region. Medical registries were searched for patient records and pathology reports. RESULTS: No statistically or clinically significant differences were recorded in the phenotype regarding symptoms reported, macroscopic or histological findings at diagnosis (all p > 0.3). A comparable number of men and women were followed up symptomatically and histologically (all p > 0.3). More men than women reported "no symptoms" on proton pump inhibitor (56% men versus 39% women, p = 0.04), although the histological response was similar between genders (p = 0.4). The proportions of food bolus obstructions and dilations were comparable (all p > 0.4). CONCLUSION: This study found very few gender differences. Results suggest that men and women with EoE may receive the same treatment. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Simple Quantitative Sensory Testing Reveals Paradoxical Co-existence of Hypoesthesia and Hyperalgesia in Diabetes.

Background: Diabetic neuropathy is characterized by the paradoxical co-existence of hypo- and hyperalgesia to sensory stimuli. The literature shows consistently sensory differences between healthy and participants with diabetes. We hypothesized that due to differences in pathophysiology, advanced quantitative sensory testing (QST) might reveal sensory discrepancies between type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Furthermore, we investigated whether vibration detection thresholds (VDT) were associated with sensory response. Method: Fifty-six adults with T1D [43 years (28-58)], 99 adults with T2D [65 years (57-71)], and 122 healthy individuals [51 years (34-64)] were included. VDT, pressure pain detection thresholds (pPDT) and tolerance (pPTT), tonic cold pain (hand-immersion in iced water), and central pain mechanisms (temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation) were tested and compared between T1D and T2D. VDT was categorized into normal (< 18 V), intermediary (18-25 V), or high (> 25 V). Results: In comparison to healthy, analysis adjusted for age, BMI, and gender revealed hypoalgesia to tibial (pPDT): p = 0.01, hyperalgesia to tonic cold pain: p < 0.01, and diminished temporal summation (arm: p < 0.01; abdomen: p < 0.01). In comparison to participants with T2D, participants with T1D were hypoalgesic to tibial pPDT: p < 0.01 and pPTT: p < 0.01, and lower VDT: p = 0.02. VDT was not associated with QST responses. Conclusion: Participants with T1D were more hypoalgesic to bone pPDT and pPTT independent of lower VDT, indicating neuronal health toward normalization. Improved understanding of differentiated sensory profiles in T1D and T2D may identify improved clinical endpoints in future trials.