Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 595

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dysphagia Bedside Screening for Acute-Stroke Patients: The Gugging Swallowing Screen

Open access
Trapl, Michaela, Enderle, Paul, Nowotny, Monika, Teuschl, Yvonne, Matz, Karl, Dachenhausen, Alexandra, Brainin, Michael·2007·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Acute-onset dysphagia after stroke is frequently associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. Because most screening tools are complex and biased toward fluid swallowing, we developed a simple, stepwise bedside screen that allows a graded rating with separate evaluations for nonfluid and fluid nutrition starting with nonfluid textures. The Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) aims at reducing the risk of aspiration during the test to a minimum; it assesses the severity of aspiration risk and recommends a special diet accordingly. Methods— Fifty acute-stroke patients were assessed prospectively. The validity of the GUSS was established by fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. For interrater reliability, 2 independent therapists evaluated 20 patients within a 2-hour period. For external validity, another group of 30 patients was tested by stroke nurses. For content validity, the liquid score of the fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing was compared with the semisolid score. Results— Interrater reliability yielded excellent agreement between both raters (κ=0.835, P <0.001). In both groups, GUSS predicted aspiration risk well (area under the curve=0.77; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.02 in the 20-patient sample; area under the curve=0.933; 95% CI, 0.833 to 1.033 in the 30-patient sample). The cutoff value of 14 points resulted in 100% sensitivity, 50% specificity, and a negative predictive value of 100% in the 20-patient sample and of 100%, 69%, and 100%, respectively, in the 30-patient sample. Content validity showed a significantly higher aspiration risk with liquids compared with semisolid textures ( P =0.001), therefore confirming the subtest sequence of GUSS. Conclusions— The GUSS offers a quick and reliable method to identify stroke patients with dysphagia and aspiration risk. Such a graded assessment considers the pathophysiology of voluntary swallowing in a more differentiated fashion and provides less discomfort for those patients who can continue with their oral feeding routine for semisolid food while refraining from drinking fluids.

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 · 10.1161/strokeaha.107.483933

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 595

Metadata

Authors
Trapl, M., Enderle, P., Nowotny, M., Teuschl, Y., Matz, K., Dachenhausen, A., & Brainin, M.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2007-11
Volume
38
Issue
11
Pages
2948-2952
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2156075192
Cited by
595
References
1
FWCI
35.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Dysphagia Bedside Screening for Acute-Stroke Patients: The Gugging Swallowing Screen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.107.483933
The paper
Trapl, M., Enderle, P., Nowotny, M., Teuschl, Y., Matz, K., Dachenhausen, A., & Brainin, M. (2007). Dysphagia Bedside Screening for Acute-Stroke Patients: The Gugging Swallowing Screen. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.107.483933

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.