ReviewTzu chi medical journal
Validity and reliability of swallowing screening tools used by nurses for dysphagia: A systematic review.
Review in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for aspiration risk associated with dysphagia in acute stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Review
- Early detection of oropharyngeal dysphagia in rehabilitation and long-term care sectors: the EDOR-Care cross-sectional study protocol.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model to Identify Positive Dysphagia Screening Results in People with Dementia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Review
- Current Technological Advances in Dysphagia Screening: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Methods for Assessment of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Are Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Screening Tests Effective in Preventing Pneumonia?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Perceived barriers to compliance with speech-language therapist dysphagia recommendations of South African nurses.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2020Article
- A New Simple Screening Tool-4QT: Can It Identify Those with Swallowing Problems? A Pilot Study.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Repetitive Saliva Swallowing Test: Norms, Clinical Relevance and the Impact of Saliva Secretion.Dysphagia · 2019Observational
- Late Effects of Organ Preservation Treatment on Swallowing and Voice; Presentation, Assessment, and Screening.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Chinese version of the swallowing screen in stroke patients with dysphagia.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysphagia following neurological impairment increases the risk of dehydration, malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia, and even death. Screening for dysphagia has been reported to change negative outcomes. This review evaluated the validity and reliability of measurement tools for screening dysphagia in patients with neurological disorders to identify a feasible tool that can be used by nurses. Electronic databases were searched for studies from 1992 to 2015 related to dysphagia screening measurements. The search was applied to the Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, EBSCO host, and CEPS + CETD databases. A checklist was used to evaluate the psychometric quality. The tools were evaluated for their feasibility for incorporation into routine care by nurses in hospitals. A total of 104 papers were retrieved, and eight articles finally met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools ranged from 29% to 100% and from 65% to 100%, respectively. The interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent agreement. On the basis of quality evaluations, all the included studies had a risk of bias because of inadequate methodological characteristics. The Standardized Swallowing Assessment is the most suitable tool for detecting dysphagia because its psychometric properties and feasibility are higher than those of other screening tools that can be administered by nurses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.