Observational studyJournal of neurology2026
The FEES Dysphagia Index: a bias-resilient continuous score that captures expert clinical judgment in 2,943 neurological inpatients.
Observational study in Journal of neurology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multi-consistency testing during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is clinically necessary, but introduces selection bias: worst scores inflate severity because the number of consistencies tested covaries with disease severity. In this retrospective observational study of hospitalized neurological patients, we derived and validated the FEES Dysphagia Index (FDI) in two temporally independent cohorts (Cohort 1: 2013-2018, N = 1,257; Cohort 2: 2021-2025, N = 1,686) from a single center. FDI-S averages Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores across tested consistencies (0-100 scale); FDI-E uses Yale Pharyngeal Residue scores; FDI-C combines both. Selection bias was quantified using sequential branching-tree inverse probability weighting (IPW). Worst PAS overestimated severity by 24%; FDI deviated by < 2%. FDI-C was significantly superior to Worst PAS for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP; AUC 0.70 vs. 0.60, p < 0.001), mortality (0.71 vs. 0.62, p = 0.040), and restricted oral intake (0.90 vs. 0.74, p < 0.001), and statistically equivalent to clinician-rated severity. FDI-C mapped linearly onto ordinal Functional Oral Intake Scale values (FOIS; proportional odds RCS p = 0.99). With functional status and diagnosis, FDI-C reconstructed the clinician's oral intake recommendation with AUC up to 0.93. The FDI-C-mortality relationship was sigmoidal with a clinically relevant transition zone between ~ 50 and ~ 85. FDI-C is a bias-resilient, bedside-calculable score with interval-scale properties that captures expert clinical judgment, suitable as both a clinical decision support tool and a continuous research endpoint.
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.