ArticleDysphagia2024
Confidence, Accuracy, and Reliability of Penetration-Aspiration Scale Ratings on Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing by Speech Pathologists.
Article in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swallowing function management in patients with disorders of consciousness: a scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and image processing framework for automated airway invasion detection and residue classification from swallowing endoscopy.Scientific reports · 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
- Quantifying Pharyngeal Residue during Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies (VFSS/MBS): Validation of Percentage-Based Visual-Perceptual Residue Ratings.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2026Article
- Can the Repetitive Saliva Swallow Test Predict Airway Invasion in All Cause Dysphagia?The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- The Arabic EAT-10 and FEES in dysphagia screening among cancer patients: a comparative prospective study.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated rater confidence when rating airway invasion with the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) on flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing (FEES), raters' accuracy against a referent-standard, inter-rater reliability, and potential associations between clinician confidence, experience, and accuracy. Thirty-one clinicians who use FEES in their daily practice were asked to judge airway invasion with the PAS and to rate their confidence that their score was correct (0-100) for 40 video clips, five in each of the 8 PAS categories. We found that raters were most confident in rating PAS 1, 7, and 8. The average confidence score across all videos was 76/100. Confidence did not have a significant relationship with accuracy against the referent-standard. Accuracy was highest for PAS 1 (92%), followed by PAS 8 (80%), PAS 7 (77%), and PAS 4 (72%). Accuracy was below 60% for PAS 2, 3, 5, and 6, the lowest being for PAS 3 (49%). Mean accuracy for all ratings, compared to referent-standard ratings, was highest for the intermediate group (71%), followed by expert (68%) and novice (65%). In general, we found that certain PAS scores tend to be rated more accurately, and that participating SLPs had varied confidence in PAS ratings on FEES. Potential reasons for these findings as well as suggested next steps are discussed.
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.