Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310723›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2025

Respiratory-swallow assessment protocol for adult dysphagia management.

Liza Bergström, Julie Cichero, Mariam Jaghbeer, Anna-Liisa Sutt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Liza BergströmDivision of Neurology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. liza.bergstrom@regionstockholm.se.
Julie CicheroSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Mariam JaghbeerIndependent Speech and Language Therapist and Researcher, Amman, Jordan.
Anna-Liisa SuttSpeech and Language Therapy, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCervical auscultation (CA) analyzes respiratory-swallow patterns to enhance the clinical swallow examination. A growing body of research demonstrates CA’s strong psychometric properties for detecting unsafe swallows. However, to date, no standard CA assessment protocol or training resources have been published.

objectiveExtending previous work, the objective is to publish the evidence-based assessment guide used in our earlier research.

methodAdditional qualitative data and recent literature was integrated to update the previously unpublished CA guide. Qualitative content analysis was performed on 71 data texts from 12 CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists describing CA respiratory-swallow signs that influenced their ratings of six swallow sound recordings. The CA ratings were compared against Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES).

resultsQualitative results, describing the swallow and respiratory characteristics of dysphagic swallows, were integrated into the CA assessment guide (Supplementary Material 9). Five critical aspects to CA assessment include: (1) pre-swallow respiratory sounds, (2) swallow sounds, (3) number of swallows, (4) post-swallow exhalation, and (5) post-swallow respiratory sounds. Additional audio sounds (Supplementary Material 1–8) and reference samples are provided (Supplementary Material 9) to facilitate an introductory training resource.

conclusionThe evidence-based CA guide and training resources are expected to establish clinically important resources for future clinical use and research evaluation.

Indexed as

AuscultationDeglutitionDeglutition DisordersRespiratory SoundsHumansCervical auscultationDeglutitionEvaluationOropharyngeal dysphagia

Identifiers

PMID41310723
PMCPMC12903235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.