ArticleDysphagia2016
Implications of Variability in Clinical Bedside Swallowing Assessment Practices by Speech Language Pathologists.
Article in Dysphagia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Upper Airway Sensory Testing in Dysphagia - Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research Directions.Dysphagia · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of dysphagia after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Approaches to Assess Post-extubation Dysphagia (PED) in the Critically Ill.Dysphagia · 2019Pooled it
- Impaired Tongue Function as an Indicator of Laryngeal Aspiration in Adults with Acquired Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review.Dysphagia · 2018Pooled it
- Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Evaluation Tools in Adults with Solid Malignancies Outside the Head and Neck and Upper GI Tract: A Systematic Review.Dysphagia · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Swallow Examination Following Laryngectomy: An International e-Delphi Consensus Process.Dysphagia · 2025Article
- Article
- Practice Patterns and Attitudes Among Speech-Language Pathologists Treating Stroke Patients with Dysphagia: A Nationwide Survey.Dysphagia · 2022Article
- Contextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultation.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021Article
- Decision making and the bedside assessment: The Speech Language Therapists' thinking when making a diagnosis at the bed.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021Article
- Swallowing patterns after adenotonsillectomy in children.Pediatric investigation · 2019Article
- A Survey of Australian Dysphagia Practice Patterns.Dysphagia · 2018Article
- Reduced Maximum Pitch Elevation Predicts Silent Aspiration of Small Liquid Volumes in Stroke Patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2017Article
- To Cough or Not to Cough? Examining the Potential Utility of Cough Testing in the Clinical Evaluation of Swallowing.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speech language pathology (SLP) clinical bedside swallowing assessments (CBSA) are a cornerstone of quality care for patients in acute hospitals who have dysphagia. The CBSA informs clinical diagnosis and decisions regarding further instrumental assessment, and is used to develop a management plan and monitor progress. However, self-report and retrospective research shows that SLPs are highly variable in their use of assessment components considered by experts to be important for quality CBSA, casting doubt on the validity and reliability of CBSA. This prospective study describes the components included by SLPs when designing a standardised evidence based dysphagia assessment protocol for acute care patients and observed patterns of component use. The findings confirm that SLPs use the CBSA for multiple purposes beyond diagnosis of aspiration risk and dysphagia presence/severity. They are highly variable in their use of certain components, but also demonstrate consistent use of a core set. It is apparent that SLPs prioritise the application of clinical reasoning to tailor their CBSA to the patient over following a highly structured item-based protocol. The variability in component use likely reflects a complex clinical reasoning process that draws on a wide variety of information combined with expert knowledge as is also observed in many other medical specialties. Rather than promoting the standardisation of CBSA protocols that constrain SLP practice to strict item-based assessment protocols, consideration should be given to promoting the value and facilitating the clinical reasoning process that supports the utility of the CBSA for diagnosis, patient centred management and treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27405423What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.