ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Inter-rater reliability and clinical relevance of subjective and objective interpretation of videofluoroscopy findings.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. 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.
- Inter-rater reliability and clinical relevance of subjective and objective interpretation of videofluoroscopy findings.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dysphagia is commonly evaluated using videofluoroscopy (VFS). As its ratings are usually subjective normal-abnormal ratings, objective measurements have been developed. We compared the inter-rater reliability of the usual VFS ratings to the objective measurement VFS ratings and evaluated their clinical relevance. Methods: Two blinded raters analyzed the subjective normal-abnormal ratings of 77 patients' VFS. Two other blinded raters analyzed the objective measurements of pharyngeal aerated area with bolus held in the oral cavity (PAhold), the pharyngeal area of residual bolus during swallowing (PAmax), the pharyngeal constriction ratio (PCR), the maximum pharyngoesophageal segment opening (PESmax), pharyngoesophageal segment opening duration (POD), airway closure duration (ACD), and total pharyngeal transit time (TPT). We evaluated the inter-rater agreement in the subjective ratings and the objective measurements. Clinical utility analysis compared the measurements with the VFS findings of pharyngeal phase abnormality, penetration/aspiration, and cricopharyngeal relaxation. Results: In the pharyngeal findings, the subjective analysis inter-rater agreement was mainly moderate to strong. The strongest agreements were on the pharyngeal residues and penetration/aspiration findings. The objective measurements had fair to good inter-rater agreement. Clinical utility analysis found statistically significant connections between TPT and pharyngeal phase abnormality, normal PCR and lack of penetration/aspiration, and normal PESmax and normal cricopharyngeal relaxation. Conclusions: The subjective analysis had moderate to strong inter-rater agreement in the pharyngeal VFS findings, especially concerning pharyngeal residues and penetration/aspiration detection, reflecting the efficacy and safety of swallowing. The objective measurements had fair to good inter-observer reproducibility and could thus improve the reliability of VFS diagnostics. Level of evidence: 4.
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.