ArticleDysphagia2025
Diagnostic Validity of Clinical Observations for Detecting Physiologic Swallowing Impairment.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A clinical swallow evaluation (CSE) is a noninvasive and indirect assessment of the anatomical and physiological integrity of the swallowing mechanism in a natural setting. A CSE goes beyond a screening, a dichotomized indicator of dysphagia risk, by comprehensively examining the patient's swallowing through gaining sensory and motor information of oral and pharyngeal function. Information obtained from CSEs in combination with medical, social, and environmental patient related factors allow clinicians to make critical decisions about patients' health and quality of life. It is essential that we have assessment tools with rigorous methodological quality to optimize the accuracy of our clinical judgement. The purpose of this study is to investigate the diagnostic validity of clinical observations obtained through the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) to better inform clinicians regarding the confidence that the items are testing what they are intended to test and reflect indication of true physiologic swallowing impairment and airway invasion. Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) analyses revealed that the MASA's diagnostic validity showed acceptable accuracy levels for detecting oral impairment and aspiration, and poor accuracy for detecting pharyngeal impairment and penetration. In the cross-validation analysis, the AUC accuracy level for aspiration changed from acceptable to poor, but remained the same for oral impairment, pharyngeal impairment and penetration. In our sample, acceptable levels for detecting aspiration but poor levels for detecting pharyngeal impairment indicate that the MASA does an adequate job of identifying risk but not explaining the nature of impairment. These results support the need for videofluoroscopic imaging to identify the nature and severity of swallowing impairment, guide intervention and provide recommendations for safe and efficient oral intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39537854What 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.