ArticleDysphagia2026
The Guided Oral-Intake and Swallowing Test (GOST): Validation of a Novel Bedside Composite Score for Dysphagia Against Instrumental Assessment.
Article in Dysphagia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Videofluoroscopy (VF) and videoendoscopy (VE) remain the gold standards for evaluating dysphagia severity. The Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale (DOSS), based on these tests, is widely used as a reference. However, such assessments are not always feasible in clinical practice, highlighting the need for a practical alternative. In response, we have developed the Guided Oral-intake and Swallowing Test (GOST).To validate the Gauge of DOSS (GDOSS), a key indicator derived from GOST, by comparing it with instrumental assessments (VF/VE) using DOSS as the reference.We retrospectively analyzed 67 inpatients who underwent both GDOSS assessment and DOSS scoring via VF or VE. The median DOSS level from three independent raters was used as the reference. Correlation (Spearman's ρ), agreement (MAE, RMSE), and categorical concordance (weighted kappa) between GDOSS and DOSS were examined. Predictive validity was evaluated using ordinal logistic regression. GDOSS demonstrated a strong correlation with DOSS (ρ=0.716, p<0.001).Furthermore, it showed good agreement across various metrics (MAE= 0.881; RMSE= 1.203; weighted κ=0.749). GDOSS also emerged as a robust independentpredictor of DOSS levels (OR = 3.79, p<0.001), even after adjusting for potential confounders.Rather than replicating exact DOSS levels, GDOSS effectively estimates a clinically meaningful severity range, reflecting both functional capacity and safety. Its integrative and probabilistic nature supports GDOSS as a valid and practical tool, especially where instrumental assessments are limited. Future studies should explore its longitudinal responsiveness and role in clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42223598What 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.