SynthesisBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Diagnostic validity of methods for assessment of swallowing sounds: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between atypical swallowing and malocclusions: a systematic review.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2023Pooled it
- Multi-site Vibration Signal Analysis for Estimating Post-Swallow Residue: A Pilot Study.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Variability in quantitative outcomes of instrumental swallowing assessments in adults: a scoping review.CoDAS · 2024Article
- Developing strategies "SATIA": How to manage dysphagia in older people? A Delphi panel consensus.Nursing open · 2023Review
- Swallow Detection with Acoustics and Accelerometric-Based Wearable Technology: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOropharyngeal dysphagia is a highly prevalent comorbidity in neurological patients and presents a serious health threat, which may lead to outcomes of aspiration pneumonia, ranging from hospitalization to death. This assessment proposes a non-invasive, acoustic-based method to differentiate between individuals with and without signals of penetration and aspiration.
objectiveThis systematic review evaluated the diagnostic validity of different methods for assessment of swallowing sounds, when compared to videofluroscopy swallowing study to detect oropharyngeal dysphagia.
methodsArticles in which the primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of swallowing sounds were searched in five electronic databases with no language or time limitations. Accuracy measurements described in the studies were transformed to construct receiver operating characteristic curves and forest plots with the aid of Review Manager v. 5.2 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). The methodology of the selected studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.
resultsThe final electronic search revealed 554 records, however only 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. The accuracy values (area under the curve) were 0.94 for microphone, 0.80 for doppler, and 0.60 for stethoscope.
conclusionBased on limited evidence and low methodological quality because few studies were included, with a small sample size, from all index testes found for this systematic review, doppler showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for the discrimination of swallowing sounds, whereas microphone-reported good accuracy discrimination of swallowing sounds of dysphagic patients and stethoscope showed best screening test.
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.