Cited by 56Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsVoice and Speech Disorders

Oropharyngeal and Esophageal Swallowing Impairments: Their Association and the Predictive Value of the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile and Combined Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance—Esophageal Manometry

Gullung, Jessica L., Hill, Elizabeth G., Castell, Donald O., Martin-Harris, Bonnie·2012·Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology

Abstract

Objectives: Deglutition is a highly integrated process of neural signaling and coordinated muscular contraction that begins with bolus preparation in the oral cavity and ends with closure of the lower esophageal sphincter after bolus passage. The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between measures of oropharyngeal and esophageal swallow function. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent modified barium swallow study (MBSS) and multichannel intraluminal impedance–esophageal manometry (MII-EM) over 7 years at an academic institution. The MBSS was scored with the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile (MBSImP). Associations between impairments as measured by the MBSImP and MII-EM were assessed with a 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Results: One hundred sixty-four patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. Comparison of MBSImPcomponent and oral and pharyngeal total regional scores to MII-EM scores revealed a significant association between abnormal esophageal clearance on MBSS (MBSImP component 17) and abnormal findings on MII-EM (p < 0.001). Delay in initiation of pharyngeal swallow (MBSImPcomponent 6) was significantly associated with abnormal esophageal clearance on MBSS (p = 0.023). Conclusions: Abnormal esophageal clearance on MBSS (MBSImP component 17) indicates a need for further esophageal testing. A functional interrelationship between abnormalities of oropharyngeal and esophageal swallowing does exist, illuminating the importance of thorough pharyngoesophageal examination for dysphagia symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/000348941212101107

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gullung, J. L., Hill, E. G., Castell, D. O., & Martin-Harris, B.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
Published
2012-11
Volume
121
Issue
11
Pages
738-745
ISSN
  • 0003-4894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-572X
OpenAlex
W2103607334
Cited by
56
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Otology Rhinology & Laryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
dysphagia, oropharyngeal swallowing, esophageal clearance, Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile, multichannel intraluminal impedance, esophageal manometry, predictive value
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Deglutition Disorders, Electrodiagnosis, Female, Humans, Male, Manometry, Middle Aged, Oropharynx, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Electric Impedance, Esophageal Sphincter, Lower, Young Adult

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