ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2020
How Important Is Randomization of Swallows During Kinematic Analyses of Swallow Function?
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoring the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) in Two Conditions: A Reliability Study.Dysphagia · 2022Article
- Reliability of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale and Temporal and Clearance Measures in Poststroke Dysphagia: Videofluoroscopic Analysis From the Swallowing Treatment using Electrical Pharyngeal Stimulation Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Purpose In dysphagia research involving kinematic analyses on individual swallow parameters, randomization is used to ensure judges are not influenced by judgments made for other parameters within the same swallow or by judgments made for other swallows from the same participant. Yet, the necessity of randomizing swallows to avoid bias during kinematic analyses is largely assumed and untested. This study investigated whether randomization of the order of swallows presented to judges impacts analyses of temporal kinematic events from videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Method One hundred twenty-seven swallows were analyzed from 18 healthy adults who underwent standardized videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Swallows were first analyzed by two trained raters sequentially, analyzing all kinematic events within each swallow, and then a second time in random order, measuring one kinematic event at a time. Intrarater reliability measurements were calculated between random and sequential swallow judgments for all kinematic events using intraclass correlation coefficient and percent exact agreement within a three-frame tolerance. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients (1.00) and percent exact agreement (89%) were excellent for all kinematic events between analyses methods, indicating there were no significant differences in measurements performed in random or sequential order. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence that randomization may be unnecessary during temporal swallow kinematic data analyses for research, which may lead to more efficient analyses and dissemination of findings, and alignment of findings with clinical interpretations. Replication of this design with swallows from people with dysphagia would strengthen the generalizability of the results.
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.