ArticleDysphagia2023
Development of a Remote Examination of Deglutition Based on Consensus Surveys of Clinicians (Part II): Reliability and Validity in Healthy Elderly Individuals and Oral Cancer Patients.
Article in Dysphagia, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The Use of Teledentistry in Diagnosis, Consultation, and Treatment of Oral and Dental Diseases: A Systematic Review Study.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Psychometric Proprieties of Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) in Italian Language: A Cross-Sectional Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our prior published study, we extracted evaluation items suitable for remote administration, and made a relatively simple Remote Examination of Deglutition (RED). This study aimed at verifying the reliability and validity of RED. The participants were 21 healthy elderly individuals and 72 postoperative oral cancer (OC) patients. OC patients underwent videofluoroscopic dysphagia examination, and severity was judged on the dysphagia severity scale (DSS). Reliability and validity of RED were examined in all participants under face-to-face conditions, in comparison with the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA). Reliability and validity of remote administration of RED were examined in 40 participants. ROC curves were used to find cut-off RED scores to predict aspiration and deglutition disorders. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the items was 0.882. There was a high correlation between the total score of RED and MASA in the face-to-face condition. When RED score was compared among different severity groups (DSS1-4, DSS5-6, and DSS7), the total and oral preparatory stage scores revealed significant group differences. The area under the curve (AUC) for aspiration based on the ROC curve was 0.913, with a sensitivity/specificity of 0.80/0.98. The AUC for deglutition disorders was 0.819, with a sensitivity/specificity of 0.74/0.67. In both face-to-face and remote conditions, the reliability of RED was good.The reliability and validity of RED were confirmed. RED has shown the potential to assess the likelihood of aspiration and deglutition disorders in OC patients remotely as an initial assessment tool.
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.