ArticleDysphagia2025
A Tool for the Assessment of Swallowing Safety and Efficiency in Adults: Turkish Adaptation of Boston Residue and Clearance Scale.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to create a Turkish language adaptation of the Boston Residue and Clearance Scale (BRACS), a validated and reliable tool. The BRACS scale was first translated into Turkish and a Turkish version was subsequently developed. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing (FEES) was administered to collect data from 25 dysphagic patients who were hospitalized after a stroke. The recorded films were subjected to editing procedures to ensure their appropriateness for the assessment of swallowing disorders and were then dispatched to a panel of five speech and language therapists for evaluation using the adaptation of the BRACS instrument. The scoring by the experts was evaluated using both explanatory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Convergent validity, item reliability, and construct (composite) reliability were measured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) values. For the 12 location items, EFA revealed 3 main latent factors: the laryngeal vestibule and the oropharynx and hypopharynx. The Turkish BRACS had excellent inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff's alpha coefficient values ranged from 0.93 to 0.95) and high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.88 to 0.93). Inter-rater ICCs for the first and second sessions were 0.83 and 0.85, respectively. CFA showed that all fitted criteria reached acceptable or perfect fit levels. The findings indicated that the proposed factor structure was validated. The AVE values are between 0.61 and 0.73 which was taken as evidence of convergent validity. The Turkish adaptation of the BRACS tool demonstrates both reliablity and validity, rendering it a useful and credible tool for assessing residual severity, particularly in clinical settings.
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.