CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 198Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementVoice and Speech DisordersReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Interrater Reliability of Videofluoroscopic Swallow Evaluation

Open access
Stoeckli, Sandro J., Huisman, Thierry A. G. M., Seifert, Burkhardt A. G. M., Martin-Harris, Bonnie J. W.·2003·Dysphagia
DOI 10.1007/s00455-002-0085-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The past two decades have brought an enormous widening of interest in and knowledge about swallowing disorders. The most frequently used technique for swallow evaluation is X-ray videofluoroscopy. Most interventions are based on this examination. Only a few studies assessing interobserver reliability of videofluoroscopy have been published. The aim of our study was to assess the interobserver reliability of videofluoroscopy for swallow evaluation. Fifty-one consecutive dysphagic patients referred for videofluoroscopy were entered into the study regardless of their underlying disorder. The first swallow (5 ml of a semisolid radio-opague contrast media) of each patient was assessed in the lateral projection by 9 independent, experienced observers from different international swallow centers. All studies were evaluated according to a standardized protocol sheet and the interobserver reliability was calculated. The interobserver reliabilities assessed as kappa coefficient for parameters of the oral and pharyngeal phase, for the temporal occurrence of penetration/aspiration, and for the location of bolus residue ranged from 0.01 to 0.56. High reliability with an intraclass coefficient of 0.80 was achieved only with the well defined penetration/aspiration score. Our study underlines the need for exact definitions of the parameters assessed by videofluoroscopy, in order to raise interobserver reliability. To date, only aspiration is evaluated with high reliability by videofluoroscopy, whereas the reliability of all other parameters of oropharyngeal swallow is poor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00455-002-0085-0

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stoeckli, S. J., Huisman, T. A. G. M., Seifert, B. A. G. M., & Martin-Harris, B. J. W.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Stoeckli, Sandro J.
ORCID
Venue
Dysphagia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2003-02-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
53-57
ISSN
  • 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0460
DOI
10.1007/s00455-002-0085-0
OpenAlex
W2048680059
Cited by
198
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Dysphagia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
inter-rater reliability, videofluoroscopy, dysphagia, penetration-aspiration, pharyngeal phase, oral phase, standardized assessment protocol
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Deglutition Disorders, Female, Fluoroscopy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Video Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

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