ArticleDysphagia2025
Clinical Implementation of DIGEST as an Evidence-Based Practice Tool for Videofluoroscopy in Oncology: A Six-Year Single Institution Implementation Evaluation.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharyngeal Dysphagia in Cancer: Characterizing Functional and Physiological Swallow Targets Across 12 Cancer Types.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Validation of the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 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
Abstract
Clinical implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) tools is a healthcare priority. The Dynamic Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) is an EBP tool developed in 2016 for videofluoroscopy in head and neck (H&N) oncology with clinical implementation as a goal. We sought to examine: (1) feasibility of clinical implementation of DIGEST in a national comprehensive cancer center, and (2) fidelity of DIGEST adoption in real-world practice. A retrospective implementation evaluation was conducted in accordance with the STARI framework. Electronic health record (EHR) databases were queried for all consecutive modified barium swallow (MBS) studies conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2016 to 2021. Implementation outcomes included: feasibility as measured by DIGEST reporting in EHR (as a marker of clinical use) and fidelity as measured by accuracy of DIGEST reporting relative to the decision-tree logic (penetration-aspiration scale [PAS], residue, and Safety [S] and Efficiency [E] grades). Contextual factors examined included year, setting, cancer type, MBS indication, and provider. 13,055 MBS were conducted by 29 providers in 7,842 unique patients across the lifespan in diverse oncology populations (69% M; age 1-96 years; 58% H&N cancer; 10% inpatient, 90% outpatient). DIGEST was reported in 12,137/13,088 exams over the 6-year implementation period representing 93% (95% CI: 93-94%) adoption in all exams and 99% (95% CI: 98-99%) of exams excluding the total laryngectomy population (n = 730). DIGEST reporting varied modestly by year, cancer type, and setting/provider (> 91% in all subgroups, p < 0.001). Accuracy of DIGEST reporting was high for overall DIGEST (incorrect SE profile 1.6%, 200/12,137), DIGEST-safety (incorrect PAS 0.4% 51/12,137) and DIGEST-efficiency (incorrect residue 1.2%, 148/12,137). Clinical implementation of DIGEST was feasible with high fidelity in a busy oncology practice across a large number of providers. Adoption of the tool across the lifespan in diverse cancer diagnoses may motivate validation beyond H&N oncology.
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.