Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Prospective Observational Study for the Comparison of Screening Methods Including Tongue Pressure and Repetitive Saliva Swallowing With Detailed Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study Findings in Patients With Acute Stroke.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. 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.
- Visible Epiglottis in an Older Adult: A Potential Indicator of Presbyphagia.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Risk factors for postextubation pneumonia using diagnosis procedure combination and claims data in Japan.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Pharmacist's Role in Preventing and Managing Drug-Induced Oral Ulceration: A Bisphosphonate Case in an Older Adult Care Setting.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimple, noninvasive, and repeatable screening methods are essential for assessing swallowing disorders. We focused on patients with acute stroke and aimed to assess the characteristics of swallowing screening tests, including the modified Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability score, tongue pressure, and repetitive saliva swallowing test (RSST), compared with detailed videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) findings to contribute as a helpful resource for their comprehensive and complementary use. METHODS AND
resultsWe enrolled first-ever patients with acute stroke conducting simultaneous assessments, including VFSS, modified Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability score, tongue pressure measurement, and RSST. VFSS assessed aspiration, laryngeal penetration, oral cavity residue, vallecular residue, pharyngeal residue, and swallowing reflex delay. Screening tests were compared with VFSS findings, and multiple logistic analysis determined variable importance. Cutoff values for each abnormal VFSS finding were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analyses. We evaluated 346 patients (70.5±12.6 years of age, 143 women). The modified Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability score was significantly associated with all findings except aspiration. Tongue pressure was significantly associated with oral cavity and pharyngeal residue. The RSST was significantly associated with all findings except oral cavity residue. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed that the minimum cutoff value for all VFSS abnormal findings was RSST ≤2.
conclusionsThe modified Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability is useful for broadly detecting swallowing disorders but may miss mild issues and aspiration. The RSST, with a score of ≤2, is valuable for indicating abnormal VFSS findings. Tongue pressure, especially in oral and pharyngeal residues, is useful. Combining these tests might enhance accuracy of the swallowing evaluation.
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.