ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Auscultation for Aspiration Detection in Adult Dysphagia: Implications for FEES Prioritization.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.