Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39181934›Full record

ArticleDysphagia2025

Reliability and Confidence of Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Rating Among Research and Clinical Speech Pathologists Before and After Implementation of a Training Manual: A Multi-site Study.

C E A Barbon, C L Warneke, B Ledger, N Rogus-Pulia, L Cunningham, J L Coyle, C Levesque-Boissonneault, C Alvarez, D Valencia, K A Hutcheson

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

C E A BarbonDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8971-6870
C L WarnekeDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5012-2861
B LedgerDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
N Rogus-PuliaGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI, USA.
L CunninghamMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
J L CoyleDepartment of Communication Science and Disorders, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
C Levesque-BoissonneaultUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Quebec, ON, Canada.
C AlvarezDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
D ValenciaDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
K A HutchesonDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. karnold@mdanderson.org.ORCID 0000-0003-3710-5706

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST™ as an evidence-based measurement tool for dysphagia in cancerR01CA271223 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Katherine Arnold Hutcheson · 2023 to 2026
$2.6M
Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute R01CA27122NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA271223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DIGEST is a validated, open-source method to grade the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia from the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST is rising, making it critical to understand reliability and facilitators of accurate implementation among users. The aim was to assess reliability of the tool among speech-language pathology (SLP) raters practicing at multiple sites before and after review of a DIGEST training manual and evaluate confidence of DIGEST use pre-and post-training. Thirty-two SLPs from 5 sites participated in a blinded longitudinal DIGEST rating study. Raters were provided a standardized training set of MBS (n = 19). Initial SLP ratings (round 1, R1) were followed by a 2-4 week break before raters rated a re-keyed MBS set (round 2, R2). A minimum 4-8 week wash-out period then preceded self-study of the DIGEST training manual which was followed by a final rating (round 3, R3) and a post-manual survey afterwards. Baseline reliability (R1) of overall DIGEST was on average k = 0.70, reflecting agreement in the substantial range. Seventy-five percent of raters (24/32) demonstrated reliability ≥ 0.61 in the substantial to almost perfect range prior to training. Inter-rater reliability significantly improved from R1 to R3 after review of the DIGEST manual, with the largest change in DIGEST-Efficiency (mean change: DIGEST k = .04, p = .009, DIGEST-Safety k = .07, p = 0.03, and DIGEST-Efficiency k = .14, p = 0.009). Although DIGEST reliability at baseline was adequate in the majority of raters, self-study of the DIGEST training manual significantly improved inter-rater reliability and rater confidence using the DIGEST method, particularly when assigning DIGEST-Efficiency grade. These early data show promise that provider training may be useful to aid in fidelity of DIGEST implementation among SLP clinical users with varying DIGEST experience.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersSpeech-Language PathologyBarium SulfateDeglutitionFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexBarium SulfateModified-barium swallowOutcomePharyngeal dysphagiaReliability

Identifiers

PMID39181934
PMCPMC11847951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.