ArticleNeurological research and practice2026
Mapping neurogenic dysphagia diagnostics in Germany: accessibility, implementation practices, and barriers to swallowing endoscopy.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2026. 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.
- Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in German stroke units: a retrospective diagnosis-related group analysis (2019-2024).Neurological research and practice · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) is a core diagnostic tool in neurogenic dysphagia. Despite a structured national training curriculum in Germany, little is known about current implementation practices and outpatient accessibility. This study mapped nationwide FEES practice patterns, workforce structures, and geographic access, and identified barriers to comprehensive service provision.
methodsA nationwide web-based survey was conducted among certified FEES instructors in Germany. The survey assessed provider characteristics, implementation practices, diagnostic–therapeutic integration, and perceived systemic barriers. In parallel, institutional websites were screened for publicly advertised outpatient FEES services and geocoded for travel-time isochrone analyses.
resultsEighty-two instructors completed the anonymous survey (response rate 52.6%). FEES was predominantly delivered in acute hospitals (74%) and rehabilitation clinics (46%) and embedded within interdisciplinary workflows. Outpatient availability remained limited (54%), with most institutions lacking statutory reimbursement pathways; additionally, many existing outpatient services were not visible to patients online. Geospatial analysis revealed substantial regional disparities, particularly in rural and eastern regions, with only a minority of residents able to reach a publicly identifiable outpatient FEES provider within 30 min. Procedural experience varied widely, and higher monthly FEES volumes were associated with shorter examination duration (r = − 0.27, p = 0.020).
conclusionsFEES is well implemented in German inpatient dysphagia care but structurally underdeveloped in the outpatient sector. Insufficient reimbursement, workforce shortages, and lack of transparency significantly impede equitable access. Strengthening outpatient infrastructure, establishing sustainable reimbursement mechanisms, and improving national visibility of services are critical steps toward ensuring continuity of dysphagia care.
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.