Cited by 101Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementVoice and Speech DisordersHead and Neck Cancer Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laryngopharyngeal Sensory Testing With Modified Barium Swallow As Predictors of Aspiration Pneumonia After Stroke

Abstract

Improved diagnostic tests that can accurately identify subjects at high risk for aspiration pneumonia (AP) are needed. One measure of this accuracy is the false‐negative rate (FNR), which determines the failure of a test to identify a group at high risk. This study compares FNRs for AP among dysphagic stroke patients for two prognostic techniques: modified barium swallow (MBS) alone and MBS combined with laryngopharyngeal sensory discrimination testing(MBS + LPSDT). MBS and LPSDT were performed within 4 weeks of stroke in 20 subjects who were prospectively followed for at least 2 years to identify the frequency of AP. MBS identified 10 patients as not at risk based on the finding of no aspiration on initial MBS; four of these patients developed AP (FNR = 40%). MBS + LPSDT identified five patients as not at risk based on the findings of neither aspiration nor bilateral sensory deficits; none of these patients developed AP (FNR = 0%). The combination of MBS criterion (aspiration) with the LPSDT criterion (bilateral sensory deficits) improves prognostication of outcome in dysphagic stroke patients by identifying a subgroup at high risk for developing AP (nonaspirators with bilateral deficits).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005537-199709000-00018

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1212/WNL.38.2.317 · DOI
  2. Mohr JP, 1986, Stroke, 475

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Metadata

Authors
Aviv, J. E., Sacco, R. L., Mohr, J. P., Thompson, J. L. P., Levin, B., Sunshine, S., Thomson, J., & Close, L. G.
Affiliations
Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Aviv, Jonathan E.
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-09
Volume
107
Issue
9
Pages
1254-1260
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
OpenAlex
W1997489154
Cited by
101
References
37
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
21.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Laryngoscope (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (RR 00645, M01RR000645)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
Keywords
aspiration pneumonia, stroke, dysphagia, modified barium swallow, false negative rate, prognostic testing, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Barium Sulfate, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Contrast Media, Deglutition, Deglutition Disorders, False Negative Reactions, Female, Fluoroscopy, Follow-Up Studies, Forecasting, Humans, Laryngeal Nerves, Larynx, Male, Middle Aged, Pharynx, Pneumonia, Aspiration, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Reflex, Risk Factors, Sensation, Sensation Disorders, Sensory Thresholds, Case-Control Studies, Treatment Outcome

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