ArticleAfrican health sciences2019
Reliability and validity of the neonatal feeding assessment scale (NFAS) for the early identification of dysphagia in moderate to late preterm neonates.
Article in African health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enjoyment in Preterm Infants: Exploring Clinical and Research Perspectives in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.Neonatal network : NN · 2026Review
- A description of feeding and swallowing in neonates with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2025Article
- Current trends and identified gaps in dysphagia research in Africa: A scoping review.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2025Article
- [Research advances in assessment tools for feeding problems in children].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021Review
- Editorial.African health sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA clinical feeding assessment instrument to assist with early identification of oropharyngeal dysphagia (OPD) in neonates was developed.
objectiveTo investigate the validity and reliability of the Neonatal Feeding Assessment Scale (NFAS) in comparison to the modified barium swallow study (MBSS) as gold standard.
methodA within-subject design was implemented. A group of 48 late premature neonates (mean gestational age 35.5 weeks) were sampled in the neonatal intensive care unit.
resultsThe NFAS consists of six subsections, including physiological stability, infant state, stress cues, screening of muscle tone and control, oral peripheral examination and feeding/swallowing assessment. 93% of participants (14/15) received confirmatory diagnosis of OPD on MBSS. The NFAS presented with high sensitivity (78.6%) and specificity (88.2%) scores. The positive predictive value was 78.6%. Subsequently the accuracy of the NFAS to identify the presence of OPD accurately was 85.4% when compared to MBSS. Inter-rater reliability was determined on 35% of the sample. The inter-rater agreement on overall instrument outcome was substantial beyond chance.
conclusionThe NFAS may be of use to clinicians to support the early identification of OPD in this population, especially in resource constrained settings working without access to MBSS and to reach under served neonates.
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.