ArticleDysphagia2022
Development of a Remote Examination of Deglutition Based on Consensus Surveys of Clinicians (Part I): Selection of Examination Items.
Article in Dysphagia, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construct Validity of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Bulbar Dysfunction Index-Remote.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to ensure appropriateness and feasibility of examination items for remote evaluation for deglutition disorders, a questionnaire based on the Delphi method was administered to 122 speech-language-hearing therapists (STs), and a set of examination items was selected. The participants were instructed to view a video recording of a remote assessment situation and answer a 30-item questionnaire. Of 19 items ensuring the appropriateness for deglutition disorders detection, 13 items ultimately met the consensus criteria for remote feasibility. Factor analysis extracted three factors: 'oral observation,' 'overall evaluation,' and 'perceptual voice judgment.' In free-text responses, "quality and stability of the voice that may be heard through the device" were the most common concerns, followed by "the need to correct of the camera angle, magnification, and targets that should be projected," "concerns about the technical aspects of the assistants and their role in relation with the examiner/ST," and "the need for palpation as well as visual confirmation." The proposed 13-item examination is considered to capture the characteristics of deglutition disorders, while items that appeared difficult to implement remotely were excluded. The fact that some items could be influenced by the video calling experience when judging the feasibility of remote implementation, the acceptability of such items, is likely to increase in the future.
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.