Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33846833›Full record

ArticleDysphagia2022

Free from Dysphagia? A Test Battery to Differentiate Between Mild and No Dysphagia.

Emma Lindroos, Kerstin Johansson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dysphagia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Emma LindroosDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Danderyd University Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. emma.lindroos@sll.se.ORCID 0000-0002-6529-0673
Kerstin JohanssonDepartment of Speech and Language Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing mild oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) raises the question where to draw the line between normal and pathological swallowing. There is a lack of clinical test methods appropriate in the subacute phase of recovery from dysphagia following stroke and other brain injuries. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a new test battery, called the Swallow Battery (SwaB), in relation to Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). SwaB consists of the validated tests Repetitive Saliva Swallowing Test (RSST), Timed Water Swallowing Test (TWST) and parts of the Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids (ToMaSS). Nineteen adult patients with acquired brain injury who were enrolled in a rehabilitation programme underwent the SwaB and a FEES, both resulting in a pass or fail outcome. The pass or fail results were based on RSST's and TWST's suggested cutoffs, normative values of ToMaSS and on established rating scales used for FEES. The SwaB's ability to predict FEES results was 74% according to a binary logistic regression analysis, with a 92% correct prediction of fail results and 33% correct prediction of pass results. The ToMaSS was sensitive to small changes in eating ability, failing 13 out of 19 patients using 95% CI normative values as cutoff, including patients with a passed FEES. Alternative cutoffs were therefore suggested, depending on purpose of dysphagia assessment. The results of this study indicate that the SwaB may be a useful tool when assessing mild dysphagia following brain injury. Further studies of SwaB's validity and clinical utility are suggested.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesDeglutition DisordersAdultDeglutitionHumansMasticationPilot ProjectsBrain injuryClinical Swallowing ExaminationDeglutitionDeglutition disordersDysphagiaFEESStrokeSwallowing assessment

Identifiers

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.