Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42257218›Full record

ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Auscultation for Aspiration Detection in Adult Dysphagia: Implications for FEES Prioritization.

Nisreen Naser Al Awaji, Abdullah Mohammed Alfaris, Shaden Abdulmohsen Alabdulkarim, Lama Al Bashir, Wajd Dhafer Alqahtani, Haya Saleh Aldahmash, Rawan Yahya Alshareef, Lara Nawaf Almutairi, Rawabi Mesfer Alqahtani, Hajar Abdulaziz Almuqrin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Nisreen Naser Al AwajiDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1853-0398
Abdullah Mohammed AlfarisRehabilitation Department King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz University Hospital Riyadh Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7895-7422
Shaden Abdulmohsen AlabdulkarimRehabilitation Department King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz University Hospital Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Lama Al BashirDepartment of Community Health Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.
Wajd Dhafer AlqahtaniDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Haya Saleh AldahmashDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Rawan Yahya AlshareefDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Lara Nawaf AlmutairiDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Rawabi Mesfer AlqahtaniDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Hajar Abdulaziz AlmuqrinDepartment of Health Communication Sciences College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether cervical auscultation (CA) provides a high-specificity, rule-in bedside signal to prioritize fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in adults at risk of aspiration. Methods: Single-center, cross-sectional diagnostic-accuracy study in a tertiary hospital. Adults referred for clinically indicated swallow evaluation underwent the same-session, mutually blinded CA (index) and FEES (reference). The unit of analysis was the individual bolus; each bolus received paired CA and FEES ratings. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios (LR±), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the ROC curve (AUC), with 95% confidence intervals; McNemar's test compared paired classifications. Results: Thirty-two adults contributed 256 analyzable boluses (aspiration prevalence 19.5%). CA sensitivity was 62.0% and specificity 99.5%, with accuracy 92.2%, PPV 96.9%, and NPV 91.5%. LR+ = 127.7 and LR- = 0.38; DOR = 334.5; AUC = 0.808. McNemar's test (FP = 1 vs. FN = 19) was significant, indicating more false negatives than false positives. At pretest probabilities of 10%, 20%, and 40%, a CA-positive result yielded post-test probabilities of 93.4%, 97.0%, and 98.8%, respectively; CA-negative results yielded post-test probabilities of 4.1%, 8.7%, and 20.3%. Conclusion: CA offers a high-specificity rule-in signal to triage and prioritize FEES rather than to exclude aspiration. Integrating CA into dysphagia pathways may improve access to instrumental assessment while maintaining safety. Level of Evidence: 2 (Diagnosis).

Indexed as

aspirationblinded‐studycervical auscultationdiagnostic accuracydysphagiaFEEStriage

Identifiers

PMID42257218
PMCPMC13240219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.