Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25135373›Full record

ReviewHNO2014

[How reliable are non-instrumental assessment tools for dysphagia?].

S Miller, D Kühn, M Jungheim, M Ptok

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in HNO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S MillerKlinik für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, MHH OE 6510, 30623, Hannover, Deutschland, Miller.Simone@mh-hannover.de.
D Kühn
M Jungheim
M Ptok
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe requirement for otorhinolaryngologists and phoniatricians to diagnose dysphagia and evaluate its extent is on the rise, particularly in light of demographic changes. The gold standards in confirmatory diagnostics are fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and the videofluoroscopic swallowing examination (VFS). Standardized assessments, such as questionnaires or assessments involving probatory swallows are often applied as screening or supportive measures. This article aims to give a critical overview of the assessment tools frequently used in clinical routine. Test quality is assessed, particularly compared to FEES and VFS.

methodsA selective literature search using PubMed has been conducted.

resultsOn the basis of this lierature search, 48 assessment tools were identified. These can be classified into screening tools, instrument-based tools (implementation standards and evaluation protocols) and questionnaire-based assessment inventories. DISCUSSION: In order to diagnose and evaluate dysphagia on the basis of assessment critieria, clinicians should be aware of indications for, as well as the advantages, disadvantages and test quality of the assessment tools. Considering the different assessment tools for anamnesis and probatory swallowing, rather low sensitivities and specificities for possible penetration and aspiration are evident. In cases where these symptoms of dysphagia are not evident and reliably assessable, confirmatory assessment via FEES or VFS is essential.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesDeglutition DisordersHumansMass ScreeningQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25135373
OpenAlexW26590394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.