A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Patient-controlled comparison of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST) and videofluoroscopy. | LitMetric

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the results of videofluoroscopy (VFS) with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST) in dysphagia testing.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of data collected over a 4-year period at a tertiary care medical center. The FEESST and VFS results for patients receiving both examinations within a 2-week period were compared with respect to swallowing function. Comparisons were categorized as full agreement, minor disagreement that would not result in a significant difference in diet recommendations, and major disagreement that would result in a significant difference in diet recommendations. Kappa with quadratic weighting was calculated to evaluate the inter-test agreement.

Results: Fifty-four patients met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Forty-one percent of patients were not eating by mouth at the time of FEESST and the mean interval between the two examinations was 5 days. Laryngeal examination revealed edema/erythema in 93%, impaired pharyngeal squeeze in 66%, decreased laryngopharyngeal sensation in 82%, and absent laryngeal adductor reflex in 30%. FEESST with all consistencies revealed pooling in 89%, penetration in 83%, and aspiration in 65% of patients. VFS revealed pooling in 65%, penetration in 67%, and aspiration in 54% of patients. Comparison of FEESST and VFS revealed full agreement in 52%, minor disagreement in 13%, and major disagreement in 35% of patients. A weighted kappa value of 0.324 signified only "fair" agreement between the two tests.

Conclusions: FEESST and VFS may not represent comparable tests of dysphagia. Further comparative studies of tests of swallowing function are required to determine the ideal approach to dysphagia testing.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000214670.40604.45DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

feesst vfs
12
flexible endoscopic
8
endoscopic evaluation
8
evaluation swallowing
8
swallowing sensory
8
sensory testing
8
testing feesst
8
swallowing function
8
full agreement
8
minor disagreement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!