The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia: which diagnostic tool is superior?
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As flexible endoscopic examinations of swallowing become more widely used to evaluate patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, it is important to be aware of research regarding the efficacy of this procedure as compared with the videofluoroscopy procedure. A recent evidence-based review of the field threw some long-held findings into question and has stimulated a surge of new research studying the sensitivity of the two instrumental examinations, health outcomes of patients who receive each procedure, and a look at different patient outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Since 1999, one quasi-randomized clinical trial has directly compared outcomes of patients given a fluoroscopy versus a fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) examination. This study showed no significant difference in pneumonia rates between the two groups of patients. A multitude of studies have shown a high level of agreement between the two instrumental examinations, and the use of the term gold standard as applied to fluoroscopy is no longer appropriate. The attempt to standardize each examination has been slow, and inter-judge reliability of results has come under fire. Several new scales for quality of life and functional status are now ready to be applied to research that can measure outcomes other than pneumonia. SUMMARY: Research to date has suggested that both instrumental examinations are valuable. It is likely that both will continue to be used and will be seen as complementary rather than competitors.
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
Cites
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
Robbins, J., Coyle, J., Rosenbek, J., Roecker, E., & Wood, J. (1999) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/pl00009610 · Cited by 308
Interrater Reliability of Videofluoroscopic Swallow Evaluation
Stoeckli, S. J., Huisman, T. A. G. M., Seifert, B. A. G. M., & Martin-Harris, B. J. W. (2003) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-002-0085-0 · Cited by 198
Cited by
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
Guideline clinical nutrition in patients with stroke
The DGEM Steering Committee*, Wirth, R., Smoliner, C., Jäger, M., Warnecke, T., Leischker, A. H., & Dziewas, R. (2013) · Experimental & Translational Stroke Medicine · doi:10.1186/2040-7378-5-14 · Cited by 160
Machine learning based analysis of speech dimensions in functional oropharyngeal dysphagia
Roldan-Vasco, S., Orozco-Duque, A., Suarez-Escudero, J. C., & Orozco-Arroyave, J. R. (2021) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106248 · Cited by 49
Kurosu, A., Coyle, J. L., Dudik, J. M., & Sejdic, E. (2019) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.038 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Langmore, S. E.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 485-489
- ISSN
- 1068-9508 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025979341
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.53
- 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: Evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia: which diagnostic tool is superior? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00020840-200312000-00014
- The paper
- Langmore, S. E. (2003). Evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia: which diagnostic tool is superior? Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00020840-200312000-00014
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.
