ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Preliminary Normative Reference Values of Validated FEES Scales in Healthy Young Adults.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivesLimited normative reference data are available for validated outcomes of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). We aimed to examine healthy swallowing via FEES in community-dwelling healthy adults to derive a preliminary reference dataset of normative validated FEES outcomes to guide clinical interpretation and diagnostic decision-making.
methodsAdults with no history of dysphagia-related disease underwent simultaneous videofluoroscopy and FEES imaging using a standardized 11-item bolus protocol. Trained raters performed duplicate, independent, blinded ratings of the New Zealand Secretion Scale (NZSS), Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), and Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity-FEES (DIGEST-FEES) validated scales. Descriptive statistics were performed at the bolus (PAS) and participant level (NZSS, DIGEST-FEES).
results361 swallows from 33 community-dwelling adults (36.6 ± 14.7 years old) were analyzed. In rank order, distribution profiles were: (1) NZSS: 95% normal (NZSS = 0), 5% abnormal (NZSS = 4); (2) Worst PAS: 73% safe (PAS 1-2, n = 24), 21% penetration above the true vocal folds (PAS 3, n = 7), 6% deep penetration to the true vocal folds (PAS = 5, n = 2); (3) DIGEST-FEES Safety Grades: 91% Grade 0 (normal, n = 30), 9% Grade 1 (mild impairment, n = 3); (4) DIGEST-FEES Efficiency Grades: 73% Grade 0 (normal, n = 24), 24% Grade 1 (mild impairment, n = 8), 3% Grade 2 (moderate impairment, n = 1).
conclusionThis preliminary healthy FEES dataset highlights variation in swallowing safety and efficiency and suggests careful interpretation of FEES outcomes to avoid over-pathologizing impairment. Future studies are warranted to obtain additional normative data in diverse populations to further understand normal variation in FEES outcomes to guide clinically meaningful diagnostic cut-points. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 135:1034-1038, 2025.
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.