Variability in quantitative outcomes of instrumental swallowing assessments in adults: a scoping review.
Jayne de Freitas Bandeira, Desiré Dominique Diniz de Magalhães, Leandro Pernambuco
PMID 39292020WHAT IT FOUND
Quantitative measures from instrumental swallowing exams varied from low to high across 13 studies.
The exams, parameters, bolus volumes and consistencies were not standardized, so single values are hard to interpret or compare.
Key findings
0113 eligible studies used the coefficient of variation to describe intraindividual variability of quantitative swallowing measures.
02Reported variability ranged from low to high, with heterogeneous examinations, parameters and collection procedures.
03Six studies had fewer than 30 participants, and most studies were done in people without swallowing difficulties.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 13 studies were eligible, and six had fewer than 30 participants, so the variability reported may not represent the full range. Most studies were done in healthy adults, not people with dysphagia, so the findings may not apply to patients being treated for swallowing problems. The included studies used different exams, parameters, volumes, consistencies, utensils and repetition counts, so their coefficient of variation values cannot be directly compared. The search could not include ProQuest, and Google Scholar was limited to the first 100 retrieved articles, so some relevant studies may have been missed. The included studies did not report robust sample calculation or sampling details, which weakens confidence in the variability estimates. A coefficient of variation depends on the mean and standard deviation of the sample, so it can change if the sample or task is not well described.
Declared interests
CAPES (Finanças Código 001) provided financial support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that quantitative instrumental swallowing assessments are not useful. The review found variability from low to high depending on exam, parameter, bolus volume and consistency, and it mapped measurement dispersion rather than testing diagnostic accuracy or treatment effects.