Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing Penetration and Aspiration: How Do Videofluoroscopy and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Compare?

Open access
Kelly, Annette M., Drinnan, Michael J., Leslie, Paula·2007·The Laryngoscope

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: We aimed to investigate whether the type of dysphagia examination (fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing [FEES] or videofluoroscopy) influences the scoring of penetration and aspiration. Study Design: Prospective, single‐blind study. Methods: Fifteen dysphagic participants were recruited and underwent one FEES and one videofluoroscopy examination, performed and recorded simultaneously. Fifteen independent raters from 12 centers scored penetration and aspiration from recordings using the Penetration Aspiration Scale. Raters were blind to participant details, the pairing of the FEES and videofluoroscopy recordings, and the other raters' scores. Interrater and intrarater reliability were analyzed using weighted kappa. Results: The Penetration Aspiration Scale scores were significantly higher for the FEES recordings than for the videofluoroscopy recordings (ANOVA P < .001). The mean difference between the FEES and videofluoroscopy penetration aspiration scores for the same swallows was 1.15 points. Interrater and intrarater reliability ranged from 0.64 to 0.79 (weighted kappa). Conclusions: Penetration aspiration is perceived to be greater (more severe) from FEES than videofluoroscopy images. The clinical implications are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlg.0b013e318123ee6a

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1097/00020840-200312000-00014 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1159/000021473 · DOI
  3. 10.1097/00005537-200004000-00008 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s00455-001-0087-3 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1007/PL00021290 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1177/000348949110000815 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00385.x · DOI
  8. 10.1097/00005537-199811000-00022 · DOI
  9. Rao N, 2003, Gold‐standard? Analysis of the videofluoroscopic and fiberoptic endoscopic swallow examinations., J Applied Res, 3, 89
  10. 10.1097/00005537-199703000-00023 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01292.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Kelly, A. M., Drinnan, M. J., & Leslie, P.
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10
Volume
117
Issue
10
Pages
1723-1727
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
OpenAlex
W2070193703
Cited by
282
References
3
FWCI
29.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Assessing Penetration and Aspiration: How Do Videofluoroscopy and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Compare? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlg.0b013e318123ee6a
The paper
Kelly, A. M., Drinnan, M. J., & Leslie, P. (2007). Assessing Penetration and Aspiration: How Do Videofluoroscopy and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Compare? The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlg.0b013e318123ee6a

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.