Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31538220›Full record

SynthesisDysphagia2020

Use of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale in Dysphagia Research: A Systematic Review.

James C Borders, Danielle Brates

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Clinical study on combining speaking valves with swallowing training to promote early decannulation in tracheostomy patients with dysphagia.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. How enteral nutrition modes influence nasopharyngeal carcinoma survivors with late dysphagia after radiotherapy: a randomized controlled study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection combined with balloon dilatation for treatment of cricopharyngeal achalasia in patient with brainstem stroke.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Assessing Inpatient Rehabilitation Outcomes for Pediatric Dysphagia with the PEDI-EAT-10.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026
    Review

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James C BordersDepartment of Otolaryngology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. james.borders@bmc.org.
Danielle BratesDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) is an 8-point scale used to characterize the depth and response to airway invasion during videofluoroscopy. Though widely used in the field of deglutition, there is a lack of consensus regarding the statistical properties of the scale. In order to better understand the state of the literature and the statistical use of the PAS, a systematic review was undertaken to descriptively examine trends in statistical and reporting practices of the PAS since its inception. Online databases were searched for studies citing the original PAS article, which yielded 754 unique articles. Of these, 183 studies were included in the review. Results showed inconsistencies in the statistical use of the scale; 79 studies treated the PAS as ordinal, 71 as categorical, and 49 as interval. Ten types of categorizations were identified. Reporting of power analyses (9%), as well as inter- (26%) and intra-rater (17%) reliability, was uncommon. Among studies that administered multiple bolus volumes or consistencies, 55% reported PAS analyses at the participant/group level only. This review confirms the existence of discrepancies in the statistical treatment of the PAS. A lack of consensus among researchers limits comparisons between studies. The approach to handling this scale dictates the statistical tests used, potentially affecting results and interpretations. Consistent application of statistically sound approaches to PAS analyses is vital for the future of deglutition research.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAdultCineradiographyDeglutitionDeglutition DisordersFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsRespiratory AspirationDeglutitionPenetration-Aspiration ScaleResearch trendsStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID31538220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.