ArticleDysphagia2022
Free from Dysphagia? A Test Battery to Differentiate Between Mild and No Dysphagia.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normative Data of Healthy Adults on the Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids (ToMaSS) with Domestic Crackers.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Establishing a preliminary normative database of oral efficiency for children: the Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids Application (ToMaSSApp).European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- The use of color-changeable chewing gum in evaluating food masticability.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
- Aspiration Risk Screening With Tongue Pressure Measurement in Acute Stroke: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study Using STARD Guidelines.SAGE open nursingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
33846833What 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.