ArticleDysphagia2023
Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES.
Article in Dysphagia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Swallowing disorders in cerebral palsy: a systematic review of oropharyngeal Dysphagia, nutritional impact, and health risks.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Acoustic and Perceptual Parameters of Swallow Sounds Associated with and Without Aspiration in Preterm Neonates: A Pilot Study.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Auscultation for Aspiration Detection in Adult Dysphagia: Implications for FEES Prioritization.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Conformal Swallowing Accelerometry: Reimagining the Acquisition and Characterization of Swallowing Mechano-Acoustic Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Respiratory-swallow assessment protocol for adult dysphagia management.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Acoustic and Perceptual Profiles of Swallowing Sounds in Preterm Neonates: A Cross-Sectional Study Cohort.Dysphagia · 2025Article
- Parameter analysis using swallowing sounds shows differences in bolus volume, bolus viscosity, sex, and age.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Comment on Chatwin et al. Waves of Precision: A Practical Guide for Reviewing New Tools to Evaluate Mechanical In-Exsufflation Efficacy in Neuromuscular Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Acoustic Analysis of Swallowing of an Experimental Meal of Three Food Textures: A Comparative Aging Study.Dysphagia · 2024Article
- Multi-sensor fusion for differentiating swallows between healthy adults and patients with post-stroke dysphagia.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (r
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.