ArticleDysphagia2024
Inter-rater and Intra-rater Reliability of the Videofluoroscopic Dysphagia Scale with the Standardized Protocol.
Article in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Respiratory Pressure in Swallowing Function and Aspiration Risk in Parkinsonism.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Progressive Resistance Training Combined with Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Sarcopenic Dysphagia in Elderly Inpatients: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Digital health technologies in swallowing care from screening to rehabilitation: A narrative review.Auris, nasus, larynx · 2025Review
- Approach to Patients with Dysphagia: Clinical Insights.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The Development of an Artificial Intelligence Video Analysis-Based Web Application to Diagnose Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Pilot 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a standardized protocol for the assessment of videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale (VDS) and to demonstrate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the VDS by applying the new standard protocol. A standardized protocol for the VDS was developed by dysphagia experts, including the original developer. To identify the reliability of the VDS using the protocol, 60 patients who underwent videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) for various etiologies were recruited retrospectively from three tertiary medical centers. Ten randomly selected cases were duplicated to evaluate the intra-rater reliability. Six physicians evaluated the VFSS data sets. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the VDS score, and Gwet's kappa values for each VDS item were calculated. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the total VDS score was 0.966 and 0.896, respectively. Notably, the evaluators' experience did not appear to have a significant impact on the reliability (physiatrists: 0.933/0.869, residents: 0.922/0.922). The reliability was consistent across different centers and dysphagia etiologies. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the oral and pharyngeal sub-scores were 0.953/0.861 and 0.958/0.907, respectively. The inter-rater agreement of individual items ranged from 0.456 to 0.929, and nine items demonstrated good to very good level of agreement. Assessment of dysphagia using the VDS with the standard protocol showed excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities regardless of the evaluator's experience, VFSS equipment, and dysphagia etiologies. The VDS can be a useful assessment scale in the quantitative analysis of dysphagia based on VFSS findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37204525What 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.