Trial reportDysphagia2025
Pharyngeal Residues Scoring through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS): Efficacy of Training.
Trial report in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of pharyngeal residues during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is based on visual-perceptual scales that involve clinical subjectivity. Training might be helpful to increase agreement among clinicians. This paper aims to assess the efficacy of training for the assessment of pharyngeal residue in FEES frames and videos through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS). Twenty-nine clinicians (Phoniatricians, Otorhinolaryngologists, Speech and Language Pathologists) and 47 students in Speech and Language Pathology participated in this study. Fourteen clinicians were randomly allocated to the training group, whilst the remaining 15 served as a control group; all the students participated in the training. Participants scored 30 pairs of videos and frames using the YPRSRS twice, before and after the training for the training groups and at least two weeks apart for the control group. Construct validity, defined as the agreement between each rater and the experts' scores, and inter-rater reliability were compared among the groups and between the first and the second assessments to verify the efficacy of the training. Construct validity significantly improved at the second assessment in the training group for the pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.71 ± 0.04, post-training 0.82 ± 0.05, p = .049) and in the students' group for the valleculae (baseline 0.64 ± 0.02, post-training 0.84 ± 0.02, p < .001) and pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.55 ± 0.03, post-training 0.77 ± 0.02, p < .05). No significant differences were found in the inter-rater reliability in any group. In conclusion, the training seems to improve participants' agreement with experts in scoring the YPRSRS in FEES videos.
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.