ArticlePerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2021
A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists' Experience With Clinical Cough Assessment.
Article in Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voluntary peak cough flow: A simple and effective tool to predict dysphagia across diverse etiologies.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Assessment and management approaches for dysphagia in tracheostomized patients: Practices of speech-language pathologists in India.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Hypotussic cough in persons with dysphagia: biobehavioral interventions and pathways to clinical implementation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if students (clinicians-intraining) and clinicians of speech-language pathology assess cough during clinical swallow evaluations. We also sought to determine if participants received background education and training regarding implementation of clinical cough assessment. Finally, we aimed to identify participant interest in a cough assessment training program. Method: A clinician-researcher panel developed a 20-question survey to address specific aims. The final survey was distributed via social media and a clinical dysphagia website after two phases of revision. Results: A percentage (84.6%) of the survey participants reported that they assess cough in clinical swallow evaluations, mainly using subjective measures. The majority of clinicians reported no background education or skilled training to implement cough assessment. Background education and training was higher for participants outside the United States, although the total sample size of that group was small. Almost all participants (97.8%) were interested in a cough training program. Conclusions: Many practicing clinicians in this survey reported that they complete cough assessments, despite limited education and training to do so. However, they also reported high interest in participating in a clinical cough assessment training program, which would support the field of speech-language pathology and patients at risk of airway protective dysfunction.
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.