Trial reportThe British journal of radiology2018
Does the total dysphagia risk score correlate with swallowing function examined by videofluoroscopy?
Trial report in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to correlate the total dysphagia risk score (TDRS) with swallowing function as measured by videofluoroscopy of swallowing using the swallowing performance scale (SPS) and the penetration aspiration scale (PAS).
methods63 patients from two different centres treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer were evaluated in the current study. Swallowing videofluoroscopies at baseline, 6 and 12 months following radiotherapy were evaluated by two observers. The TDRS of all patients was calculated and correlated with the consensus PAS and SPS scores of the two observers.
resultsRegarding the PAS scale, we did not observe a significant correlation with the TDRS. Regarding SPS, we found a significant correlation at 6 months (p = 0.01) and a borderline significant correlation at 12 months (p = 0.05). We observed statistically lower SPS scores for patients in the intermediate-risk category when compared to the high-risk category. When we compared low vs high TDRS risk patients, we did not observe a significant difference regarding SPS scores. When comparing low- vs intermediate-risk patients, we observed higher SPS scores in the low-risk group (p = 0.01). When the low- and intermediate-risk patients were grouped together, we observed less swallowing problems as measured by SPS in the low and intermediate group when compared to the high-risk group (p = 0.05) at 6 months.
conclusionPatients with high-risk TDRS scores have higher SPS scores when compared to the intermediate group and the intermediate- and low-risk group together. However, low-risk patients in our patient cohort could not be distinguished from high or intermediate-risk patients. Advances in knowledge: TDRS was never correlated with videofluoroscopies in past studies. The hypothesis of this paper was to see if the TDRS could guide us to see which patients are at risk for high scores on SPS and PAS and might need a videofluoroscopic examination in the follow up. Given the poor correlations in our study, however, we cannot recommend the use of the TDRS to select patients who might benefit from the additional information provided by videofluoroscopies.
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.