The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Can bedside assessment reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of a bedside swallowing assessment to reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke. SUBJECTS: Consecutive patients admitted within 24 h of stroke onset to two hospitals. METHODS: A prospective study. Where possible, all patients had their ability to swallow assessed on the day of admission by both a doctor and a speech and language therapist using a standardized proforma. A videofluoroscopy examination was conducted within 3 days of admission. RESULTS: 94 patients underwent videofluoroscopy; 20 (21%) were seen to be aspirating, although this was not detected at the bedside in 10. In 18 (22%) of the patients the speech and language therapist considered the swallow to be unsafe. In the medical assessment, 39 patients (41%) had an unsafe swallow. Bedside assessment by a speech and language therapist gave a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 86%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 50% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85% for the presence of aspiration. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the optimum elements of the bedside assessments for predicting the presence of aspiration. A weak voluntary cough and any alteration in conscious level gave a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 72%, PPV of 41% and NPV of 91% for aspiration. CONCLUSION: Bedside assessment of swallowing lacks the necessary sensitivity to be used as a screening instrument in acute stroke, but there are concerns about the use of videofluoroscopy as a gold standard. The relative importance of aspiration and bedside assessment in predicting complications and outcome needs to be studied.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Trevethan, R. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307 · Cited by 1,616
Baijens, L. W., Clavé, P., Cras, P., Ekberg, O., Forster, A., Kolb, G., Leners, J. C., Masiero, S., Mateos del Nozal, J., Ortega, O., et al. (2016) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s107750 · Cited by 773
Self-citationSingh, S., & Hamdy, S. (2006) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.043281 · Cited by 306
Use of deep learning to segment bolus during videofluoroscopic swallow studies
Shaheen, N., Burdick, R., Peña-Chávez, R., Ulmschneider, C., Yee, J., Kurosu, A., Rogus-Pulia, N., & Bednarz, B. (2024) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ad0bb3 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- SMITHARD, D. G., O'NEILL, P. A., PARK, C., ENGLAND, R., RENWICK, D. S., WYATT, R., MORRIS, J., & MARTIN, D. F.
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-106
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W2164303578
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can bedside assessment reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/27.2.99
- The paper
- SMITHARD, D. G., O'NEILL, P. A., PARK, C., ENGLAND, R., RENWICK, D. S., WYATT, R., MORRIS, J., & MARTIN, D. F. (1998). Can bedside assessment reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke? Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/27.2.99
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.