ArticleThe Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology2019
Safety of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination in gastroenterological practice.
Article in The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology, 2019. 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, 6 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn South Korea, the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) has been increasingly performed by gastroenterologists. The principal concern was the safety of the FEES performed by gastroenterologists without any involvement of speech-language pathologists. We aimed to characterize the safety and tolerance of gastroenterologist-directed FEES examinations (GDFEES). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated the GDFEES failures, safety profile (laryngospasm, epistaxis, vasovagal syncope, airway compromise, heart rate, blood pressure, and significant change in cardiovascular function), and discomfort level in patients undergoing GDFEES. These outcomes were also analyzed based on gender, age, and calendar period.
resultsA total 303 examinations in 268 adult patients with dysphagia were performed during the study period. The GDFEES failures occurred in 5 patients (1.7%). The causes of failures were poor co-operation and insertion difficulty. There were no instances of laryngospasm or vasovagal syncope or significant cardiovascular changes in any of the examinations. Self-limiting epistaxis occurred in 22 examinations (7.3%). The discomfort ratings were as follows: 128 examinations (43.0%) rated the overall discomfort of the test as none, 150 (50.3%) as mild, 18 (6.0%) as moderate, and 2 (0.7%) as severe discomfort. The discomfort level was significantly different only between the first and second half periods (p <0.001), but it was related to neither gender nor age.
conclusionThe GDFEES can be endorsed as an appropriate paradigm for clinical practice based on our study investigating its safety and tolerance.
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.