Parameters of Instrumental Swallowing Evaluations: Describing a Diagnostic Dilemma

The aim of this study was to test reliability, content, construct, and external validity of a new modified barium swallowing study (MBSS) tool (MBSImp) that is used to quantify swallowing impairment. Multiple regression, confirmatory factor, and correlation analyses were used to analyze 300 in- and outpatients with heterogeneous medical and surgical diagnoses who were sequentially referred for MBS exams at a university medical center and private tertiary care community hospital. Main outcome measures were the MBSImp and index scores of aspiration, health status, and quality of life. Inter- and intrarater concordance were 80% or greater for blinded scoring of MBSSs. Regression analysis revealed contributions of eight of nine swallow types to impressions of overall swallowing impairment (p /= 0.5) that formed two impairment groupings (oral and pharyngeal). Significant correlations were found between Oral and Pharyngeal Impairment scores and Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores, and indexes of intake status, nutrition, health status, and quality of life. The MBSImp demonstrated clinical practicality, favorable inter- and intrarater reliability following standardized training, content, and external validity. This study reflects potential for establishment of a new standard for quantification and comparison of oropharyngeal swallowing impairment across patient diagnoses as measured on MBSS.

The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale was developed, standardized, and validated to provide reliable, anatomically defined, and image-based assessment of post-swallow pharyngeal residue severity as observed during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). It is a five-point ordinal rating scale based on residue location (vallecula and pyriform sinus) and amount (none, trace, mild, moderate, and severe). Two expert judges reviewed a total of 261 FEES evaluations and selected a no residue exemplar and three exemplars each of trace, mild, moderate, and severe vallecula and pyriform sinus residue. Hard-copy color images of the no residue, 12 vallecula, and 12 pyriform sinus exemplars were randomized by residue location for hierarchical categorization by 20 raters with a mean of 8.3 years of experience (range 2-27 years) performing and interpreting FEES. Severity ratings for all images were performed by the same 20 raters, 2 weeks apart, and with the order of image presentations randomized. Intra-rater test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and construct validity were determined by pooled multi-category multi-rater kappa statistics. Residue ratings were excellent for intra-rater reliability for vallecula (kappa = 0.957 ± 0.014) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.854 ± 0.021); very good to excellent for inter-rater reliability for vallecula (kappa = 0.868 ± 0.011) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.751 ± 0.011); and excellent for validity for vallecula (kappa = 0.951 ± 0.014) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.908 ± 0.017). Clinical uses include accurate classification of vallecula and pyriform sinus residue severity patterns as none, trace, mild, moderate, or severe for diagnostic purposes, determination of functional therapeutic change, and precise dissemination of shared information. Scientific uses include tracking outcome measures, demonstrating efficacy of interventions to reduce pharyngeal residue, investigating morbidity and mortality in relation to pharyngeal residue severity, and improving training and accuracy of FEES interpretation by students and clinicians. The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale is a reliable, validated, anatomically defined, and image-based tool to determine residue location and severity based on FEES.

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. Prospective, single-blind study. 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. 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). Penetration aspiration is perceived to be greater (more severe) from FEES than videofluoroscopy images. The clinical implications are discussed.