Ole Schlickewei, Julie Cläre Nienstedt, Ulrike Frank, Odette Fründt, Monika Pötter-Nerger, Christian Gerloff, Carsten Buhmann, Frank Müller, Susanne Lezius, Jana-Christiane Koseki, Christina Pflug

• Purpose: Dysphagia is common in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and often leads to pneumonia, malnutrition, and reduced quality of life. This study investigates the ability of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), an established, easy self-administered screening tool, to detect aspiration in PD patients. This study aims to validate the ability of the EAT-10 to detect FEES-proven aspiration in patients with PD. Methods: In a controlled prospective cross-sectional study, a total of 50 PD patients completed the EAT-10 and, subsequently, were examined by Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) to determine the swallowing status. The results were rated through the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) and data were analyzed retrospectively. Results: PAS and EAT-10 did not correlate significantly. Selected items of the EAT-10 could not predict aspiration or residues. 19 (38%) out of 50 patients with either penetration or aspiration were not detected by the EAT-10. The diagnostic accuracy was established at only aPurpose: Dysphagia is common in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and often leads to pneumonia, malnutrition, and reduced quality of life. This study investigates the ability of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), an established, easy self-administered screening tool, to detect aspiration in PD patients. This study aims to validate the ability of the EAT-10 to detect FEES-proven aspiration in patients with PD. Methods: In a controlled prospective cross-sectional study, a total of 50 PD patients completed the EAT-10 and, subsequently, were examined by Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) to determine the swallowing status. The results were rated through the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) and data were analyzed retrospectively. Results: PAS and EAT-10 did not correlate significantly. Selected items of the EAT-10 could not predict aspiration or residues. 19 (38%) out of 50 patients with either penetration or aspiration were not detected by the EAT-10. The diagnostic accuracy was established at only a sufficient level (AUC 0.65). An optimal cut-off value of >= 6 presented a sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 82%. Conclusions: The EAT-10 is not suited for the detection of penetration and aspiration in PD patients. Therefore, it cannot be used as a screening method in this patient population. There is still a need for a valid, simple, and efficient screening tool to assist physicians in their daily diagnostics and to avoid clinical complications.…