الفهرس 
(Reliability and validity of the Egyptian Arabic version of Pediatric Eating Assessment Tool (PEDI-EAT-10) versus Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES
List of ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 124 |  |  |
| | | from | 124 | | |
Abstract
Background: Patients presenting with dysphagia may be at risk of aspiration with its known serious complications. A bedside screening tool is required for early identification of patients at increased risk. The caregiver administered PEDI-EAT-10 is considered a promising tool to discriminate safe versus unsafe swallowing in children. Aim: To generate an Egyptian Arabic version of PEDI-EAT-10 and to test its reliability and validity for detection of the risk of aspiration in children presenting with swallowing difficulties. Study Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Methods: The study consisted of the following phases: Egyptian Arabic PEDI-EAT-10 generation, normative data establishment, and validity analysis. Forward and backward translation of PEDI-EAT-10 into Egyptian Arabic were accomplished. The study included a group of 87 patients (median age= 19 months, 51.7% females) presenting with dysphagia and referred for Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) examination at an Egyptian tertiary care center swallowing outpatient clinic, and another group of 51 healthy children as a control group. Clinical data and anthropometric measurements were collected and parents were interviewed and asked the 10 questions of the Egyptian Arabic PEDI-EAT-10. FEES was performed and Penetration-Aspiration Score (PAS) was estimated for all the patients. The questionnaire and FEES scores in the 87 patients were correlated for clinical and criterion validity assessment Results: In comparison to the control group, patients had a significantly higher proportion of underweight (20.7% vs. 0%, P<0.001) and severely underweight children (31% vs. 0%, P <0.001), and a significantly higher proportion of stunted (24.1% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001) and severely stunted children (39.1% vs. 5.3%, P< 0.001)