ArticleDysphagia2024
Deglutologist Practices and Perceptions of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale: A Survey Study.
Article in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of resistance exercise on patients with post-stroke dysphagia based on ACSM recommendations: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
Abstract
Successful dysphagia management requires accurate, succinct diagnosis and characterization of swallowing safety impairments. However, the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) remains the only available tool developed exclusively for assessment of airway protection. To best support efforts to advance the field's understanding of swallowing safety, it is crucial to understand current clinician practice patterns, perceptions, and accuracy regarding the PAS. A 46-item survey was developed and distributed to deglutologists internationally examining: (1) Demographics; (2) Scale Practices; (3) Swallowing Safety Priorities; (4) Scale Perceptions; and (5) Accuracy. The first four sections consisted of questionnaires. In the optional fifth section, respondents were asked to score five videos of swallows collected via videofluoroscopy and previously PAS-scored by two trained raters. In total, 335 responses were analyzed. The majority of respondents self-reported PAS training (84%); 90% of untrained respondents were receptive to training. Respondents reported using the PAS "always" (40%) or "frequently" (29%), and that the PAS carries "a great deal of" weight in assessment (40%). Reported application of the PAS was heterogeneous, with the most common approach being "single worst score per unique presentation" (45%). Most respondents (64%) prioritized a parameter not captured by the PAS. Untrained respondents were significantly more confident with PAS ratings than trained respondents (X
Indexed as
Identifiers
38267756What 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.