ArticleBMC research notes2025
Respiratory-swallow assessment protocol for adult dysphagia management.
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.
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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Auscultation for Aspiration Detection in Adult Dysphagia: Implications for FEES Prioritization.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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methodAdditional qualitative data and recent literature was integrated to update the previously unpublished CA guide.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
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.