ArticleDysphagia2021
Diagnostic Accuracy of an Esophageal Screening Protocol Interpreted by the Speech-Language Pathologist.
Article in Dysphagia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Consensus expert recommendations for management of dysphagia during hospital admission in Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- The Role of Video Fluoroscopic Swallow Study as a Screening Tool for Esophageal Dysmotility: A Call for More Widespread Implementation of a Standardized Esophageal Sweep Protocol.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Esophageal retention on modified barium swallow study: Limited predictive value for true esophageal pathology.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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
Oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia may occur simultaneously. However, symptoms are often evaluated separately. Few standardized, multi-texture esophageal screening protocols exist as an addition to the modified barium swallow study (MBSS). Given the gap in MBSS evaluation standards, providers may be lacking information needed to fully assess the swallowing process and create appropriate dysphagia management plans. The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a standardized esophageal screening protocol performed by an SLP compared to formal reference esophageal examinations. A cross-sectional analytic study was performed. Consecutively referred patients who underwent same-day consultation with the SLP and a gastroenterologist were included. MBSS with a standardized esophageal screen was performed. Same-day formal esophageal testing was completed and included timed barium emptying study or high-resolution manometry. Summary diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated. Seventy-three patients matched the inclusion criteria. Median age was 62.5 years (25-87), 55% were female. Sensitivity of the esophageal screen for the detection of esophageal abnormality was 83.7% (95% CI 70-91.9%); specificity was 73.7% (95% CI 55.6-85.8%). The positive likelihood ratio was 3.14 (95% CI 1.71-5.77), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was 0.22 (95% CI 0.11-0.45). Positive and negative predictive values were 82% and 76%, respectively. Use of a systematic, multi-texture esophageal screen protocol interpreted by SLPs accurately identifies multiphase dysphagia and should be considered in addition to standard MBSS testing. Inclusion of a cursory esophageal view may more adequately assess dysphagia symptoms and help to promote multidisciplinary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33609165What 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.