ArticleDysphagia2021
Visuoperceptual Analysis of the Videofluoroscopic Study of Swallowing: An International Delphi Study.
Article in Dysphagia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Pharyngeal 3D Volume Using 2D Lateral Area Measurements During Swallowing.Dysphagia · 2024Article
- Application of deep learning technology for temporal analysis of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development of a Visuoperceptual Measure for Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (V-FEES) in Adults with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: An International Delphi Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- A Visuoperceptual Measure for Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies (VMV): A Pilot Study of Validity and Reliability in Adults with Dysphagia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Oesophageal screening in videofluoroscopic swallow studies: Perspectives from the multidisciplinary dysphagia team to refine the clinical pathway.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Videofluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) is a commonly used dysphagia assessment that is routinely analysed visuoperceptually. However, no consensus exists regarding which visuoperceptual measures should be used to analyse VFSSs. Current visuoperceptual measures for VFSSs are limited by poor quality and incomplete or indeterminate psychometric properties.
objectiveThis study aimed to establish the content validity for a new visuoperceptual VFSS measure for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults, by identifying relevant domains of the construct and generating items and corresponding response scales.
methodsConsensus among experts in dysphagia and VFSS from over 20 countries was achieved across three rounds of anonymous online surveys, using the Delphi technique. Participants judged relevance and comprehensiveness of definitions of visuoperceptual domains of VFSS and the relevance of various domains to the overall construct. After reaching consensus on definitions of relevant domains, consensus on items were established using the same process.
resultsParticipants achieved consensus on definitions of 32 domains recommended for analysis, and at least one item per domain (range 1-4). Domains selected by participants included both those which occur in existing measures and domains which have not been included in any measures to date. This study will form the basis for content validity of a new measure for VFSS.
conclusionsThis first phase of developing a visuoperceptual measure of VFSS resulted in the identification of 32 domains and 60 items for oropharyngeal dysphagia. Developers can now advance to the next phase of measure construction; prototype development and psychometric testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32888067What 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.