SynthesisJournal of oral rehabilitation2025
Validity and Reliability of Ultrasound Assessment of Swallowing Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Relationship Between Swallowing Muscle Morphology and Dysphagia in Patients Followed With Stroke.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Association between swallowing function and Short Physical Performance Battery score in hospitalized adults with heart failure: A retrospective cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of ultrasound (US) makes it convenient to identify dysphagia or swallowing impairment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of US measurements for swallowing function.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were systematically searched from inception to July 22, 2024. Published studies on the validity and reliability of US measurements for assessing dysphagia or swallowing impairment in individuals aged 18 years and older were included. The review followed PRISMA guidelines and was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies. Two authors independently screened potentially eligible literature, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and then extracted the data. Data synthesis was conducted via random-effects meta-analysis using Stata software.
resultsThis review included 38 articles, assessing the value of using hyoid bone displacement, thyrohyoid approximation, and tongue muscle thickness change on US for identifying dysphagia. The pooled sensitivities were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.50-0.79), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.66-1.11), and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.44-0.76), respectively; with pooled specificities of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.78), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.88), and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62-0.77), respectively. Additionally, the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) for identifying dysphagia using masseter thickness was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70-0.78). The correlation coefficient of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.20-0.81) was observed between displacement and swallowing function, whereas the correlation for swallowing muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.09-0.42). Meta-analyses revealed intrarater reliability values of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94) for displacement, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) for CSA, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80) for swallowing muscle thickness, and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74-0.84) for echo intensity. Interrater reliability values were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55-0.87) for displacement, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.94) for CSA, and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.57-0.75) for swallowing muscle thickness.
conclusionData from this review suggested that US was a reliable and valid screening tool for assessing dysphagia and swallowing impairment. Future research could aim at proposing standardised and universal US protocols to promote comparability and reliability in clinical practice.
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.