Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39001914›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Normal values for swallow events during endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: a preliminary study.

Sarah Sutton, Lauren Lim, Kendahl Servino, Hao To, Lingchen Wang, Yvette McCoy, Ed M Bice, Kristine E Galek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sarah SuttonBS University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, North Virginia Street, MS 0152, Reno, NV, 89557, USA.
Lauren LimBS University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, North Virginia Street, MS 0152, Reno, NV, 89557, USA.
Kendahl ServinoBS University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, North Virginia Street, MS 0152, Reno, NV, 89557, USA.
Hao ToBS University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, North Virginia Street, MS 0152, Reno, NV, 89557, USA.
Lingchen WangReno School of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Yvette McCoyMS, Moravian University College of Health School of Rehabilitative Science, Moravian, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-2978
Ed M BiceIOPI Medical, LLC, Clinical consulting, Woodinville, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5753-9133
Kristine E GalekUniversity of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, Speech Pathology and Audiology, Reno, NV , USA. kgalek@med.unr.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3398-7513

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe current investigation aimed to establish preliminary normative data for endoscopic swallow studies (FEES). The investigators collected data for three timing measures (time to whiteout, duration of whiteout, and total swallow time), three swallowing outcomes (safety, efficiency, and number of swallows per bolus), and one physiologic event (glottal response), for both healthy young and older adults using two liquid volumes, one pureed bolus and a solid bolus.

methodsBlinded raters retrospectively analyzed 65 randomly selected, deidentified videos of endoscopic swallowing examinations from a pool of 163 young and older adults with typical swallowing abilities. Timing measures and analysis of airway invasion, amount of residue, number of swallows, and glottal response were obtained.

resultsPreliminary means and quartiles were established for healthy adults in two age groups (young and old), for time to whiteout (WO), number of swallows per bolus, glottal response, Yale Residue Rating Scale Scores, Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores, duration of WO, and total swallow duration. Differences were found between the older and younger groups.

conclusionThe current study represents a preliminary attempt to provide quantitative and normative values for FEES. These data represent reference values to which other bolus presentations and populations can be compared. The data represents proof of concept and merits additional investigation. IRB ID: 1756246-2: Approved 2022/06/06. CLINICAL

trial registrationStudy does not meet criteria. DATA REPOSITORY: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25800025 .

Indexed as

DeglutitionAdultAgedDeglutition DisordersEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleReference ValuesRetrospective StudiesVideo RecordingFEESPenetration and aspirationPhysiological measureReference valuesSwallow residueTiming measures

Identifiers

PMID39001914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.