ArticleDysphagia2026
Practice Variation in Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES): An International Survey.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a cornerstone of instrumental dysphagia assessment, yet substantial practice variation has been documented across clinical settings. This study aimed to characterize variation in FEES protocols and examine associations between clinician and professional characteristics, practice patterns, and confidence in interpreting clinical findings. An online survey was completed by 109 professionals with FEES experience. The final analytic sample included 97 participants. The survey assessed demographic and professional background, protocol components, examination duration, and self-rated confidence in clinical judgements. Substantial heterogeneity was found across FEES protocol components, including inconsistent incorporation of sensory testing, variable dye use, and diverse rating scale adoption. The Penetration-Aspiration Scale was used by 98.9% of respondents, while other scales showed lower adoption rates. Confidence was highest for judging aspiration presence and lowest for aspiration depth. Greater FEES-specific experience was associated with shorter examination duration (p = 0.03), but neither years of experience nor education level significantly predicted overall confidence in judgment. Physician status and higher education were significantly associated with performing formal sensory testing. FEES is implemented with considerable variability in clinical practice. Confidence in judgment appears to be influenced by the complexity of the clinical finding and the availability of structured rating tools rather than by experience or education alone. These findings support the need for clearer definition of core protocol components, development of standardized tools for complex swallowing parameters, and systematic evaluation of training models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875642What 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.