Test-retest variability in normal swallowing
Abstract
The test-retest variability of the modified barium swallow study using videofluoroscopy was analyzed. Sixteen normal subjects (8 men, 8 women) were organized into 2 age groups: middle-aged group (mean, 45 years) and old-age group (mean, 66 years). Nine durational measures of the swallow were evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the measures between the initial test and a retest conducted days later. The findings suggest that, on the whole, normal subjects perform similarly on test and a retest. However, the variability displayed by these normal subjects may be clinically significant, indicating that test-retest swallowing duration measures require careful interpretation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Human ratings of swallowing kinematic events are subjective, creating an inter-rater tolerance of 82 ms (≈ ±2.48 frames at 30 FPS).
“One major disadvantage of human ratings is the subjectivity which creates an inter-rater tolerance of 82 msec (≈ ± 2.48 frames at 30 FPS) as reported for measuring swallowing kinematic events [62].”
From Upper esophageal sphincter opening segmentation with convolutional recurrent neural networks in high resolution cervical auscultation (2021) · cites this paper as [62]
The accepted tolerance for human frame selection is approximately ±2.48 frames at 30 FPS.
“The accepted tolerance for human frame selection ≈ ± 2.48 frames at 30 FPS [62].”
From Upper esophageal sphincter opening segmentation with convolutional recurrent neural networks in high resolution cervical auscultation (2021) · cites this paper as [62]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589 · see citing works
Durational aspects of the oral-pharyngeal phase of swallow in normal adults
Sonies, B. C., Parent, L. J., Morrish, K., & Baum, B. J. (1988) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/bf02406274 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A penetration-aspiration scale
Rosenbek, J. C., Robbins, J. A., Roecker, E. B., Coyle, J. L., & Wood, J. L. (1996) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/bf00417897 · Cited by 2,803 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Effects of Lingual Exercise in Stroke Patients With Dysphagia
Robbins, J., Kays, S. A., Gangnon, R. E., Hind, J. A., Hewitt, A. L., Gentry, L. R., & Taylor, A. J. (2007) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.11.002 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
Self-citationThe association of swallowing dysfunction and aspiration pneumonia
Martin, B. W., Corlew, M., Wood, H., Olson, D., Golopol, L., Wingo, M., & Kirmani, N. (1994) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/bf00262751 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Reference values for healthy swallowing across the range from thin to extremely thick liquids
Steele, C. M., Peladeau-Pigeon, M., Barbon, C. A. E., Guida, B. T., Namasivayam-MacDonald, A. M., Nascimento, W. V., Smaoui, S., Tapson, M. S., Valenzano, T. J., Waito, A. A., et al. (2019) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-s-18-0448 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Kidder, T. M., Langmore, S. E., & Martin, B. J. W. (1994) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/bf00301919 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Khalifa, Y., Donohue, C., Coyle, J. L., & Sejdic, E. (2021) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2020.3000057 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
High-resolution cervical auscultation and data science: new tools to address an old problem
Coyle, J. L., & Sejdić, E. (2020) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00155 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Donohue, C., Khalifa, Y., Mao, S., Perera, S., Sejdić, E., & Coyle, J. L. (2021) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00134 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Donohue, C., Khalifa, Y., Mao, S., Perera, S., Sejdić, E., & Coyle, J. L. (2022) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-021-10317-0 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lof, G. L., & Robbins, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Dysphagia
- Published
- 1990-12
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 236-242
- ISSN
- 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0460
- OpenAlex
- W2028006743
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 10.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Dysphagia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS024427, NS24427)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
- Keywords
- test-retest variability, swallowing, videofluoroscopy, modified barium swallow, swallowing duration, normal swallowing, age differences, interobserver variability
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Deglutition, Esophagus, Female, Fluoroscopy, Food, Humans, Hyoid Bone, Male, Middle Aged, Mouth, Oropharynx, Videotape Recording, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
