Pharyngeal Residues Scoring through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS): Efficacy of Training.
Deglutition disorders
Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing
Pharyngeal residues
Training
Journal
Dysphagia
ISSN: 1432-0460
Titre abrégé: Dysphagia
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8610856
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2024
07 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
06
03
2024
accepted:
22
05
2024
medline:
7
6
2024
pubmed:
7
6
2024
entrez:
7
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The assessment of pharyngeal residues during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is based on visual-perceptual scales that involve clinical subjectivity. Training might be helpful to increase agreement among clinicians. This paper aims to assess the efficacy of training for the assessment of pharyngeal residue in FEES frames and videos through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS). Twenty-nine clinicians (Phoniatricians, Otorhinolaryngologists, Speech and Language Pathologists) and 47 students in Speech and Language Pathology participated in this study. Fourteen clinicians were randomly allocated to the training group, whilst the remaining 15 served as a control group; all the students participated in the training. Participants scored 30 pairs of videos and frames using the YPRSRS twice, before and after the training for the training groups and at least two weeks apart for the control group. Construct validity, defined as the agreement between each rater and the experts' scores, and inter-rater reliability were compared among the groups and between the first and the second assessments to verify the efficacy of the training. Construct validity significantly improved at the second assessment in the training group for the pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.71 ± 0.04, post-training 0.82 ± 0.05, p = .049) and in the students' group for the valleculae (baseline 0.64 ± 0.02, post-training 0.84 ± 0.02, p < .001) and pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.55 ± 0.03, post-training 0.77 ± 0.02, p < .05). No significant differences were found in the inter-rater reliability in any group. In conclusion, the training seems to improve participants' agreement with experts in scoring the YPRSRS in FEES videos.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38847840
doi: 10.1007/s00455-024-10725-y
pii: 10.1007/s00455-024-10725-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia. 1988;2(4):216–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02414429 .
doi: 10.1007/BF02414429
pubmed: 3251697
Schindler A, Baijens LWJ, Geneid A, Pizzorni N. Phoniatricians and otorhinolaryngologists approaching oropharyngeal dysphagia: an update on FEES. Eur Arch Otorhinolayngol. 2022;279(6):2727–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07161-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07161-1
Pisegna JM, Langmore SE. Parameters of Instrumental swallowing evaluations: describing a diagnostic dilemma. Dysphagia. 2016;31(3):462–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3
pubmed: 26987971
Giraldo-Cadavid LF, Leal-Leaño LR, Leon-Basantes GA, Bastidas AR, Garcia R, Ovalle S, Abondano-Garavito JE. Accuracy of endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing for oropharyngeal dysphagia. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(9):2002–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26419 .
doi: 10.1002/lary.26419
pubmed: 27859291
Yoon JA, Kim SH, Jang MH, Kim SD, Shin YB. Correlations between Aspiration and pharyngeal Residue Scale scores for fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation and Videofluoroscopy. Yonsei Med J. 2019;60(12):1181–6. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1181 .
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1181
pubmed: 31769249
pmcid: 6881705
Swan K, Cordier R, Brown T, Speyer R. Psychometric properties of visuoperceptual measures of videofluoroscopic and fibre-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2019;34:2–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9918-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-018-9918-3
pubmed: 30019178
Curtis JA, Borders JC, Perry SE, Dakin AE, Seikaly ZN, Troche MS. Visual analysis of swallowing efficiency and safety (VASES): a standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration during FEES. Dysphagia. 2022;37:417–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10293-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-021-10293-5
pubmed: 33837841
Kaneoka AS, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Field K, Scheel R, Mcnally E, Walsh MJ, O’Dea MB, Cabral H. The Boston residue and clearance scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65:312–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365006 .
doi: 10.1159/000365006
pubmed: 25033761
Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity rating scale: an anatomically defined and image-based Tool. Dysphagia. 2015;n 30:521–8.
Gerschke M, Schottker-Koniger T, Forster A, Netzebandt JF, Beushausen UM. Validation of the German version of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity rating scale. Dysphagia n. 2019;34:308–14.
doi: 10.1007/s00455-018-9935-2
Atar Y, Atar S, Ilgin C, Anarat MEA, Uygan U, Uyar Y. Validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity rating scale. Dysphagia. 2022;37(3):655–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10316-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-021-10316-1
pubmed: 34021774
Neubauer PD, Hersey DP, Leder SB. Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating scales based on fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation 361 of swallowing. Syst Rev Dysphagia. 2016;31(3):352–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9682-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-015-9682-6
Nordio S, Maistrello L, Favaretto N, Dellai A, Montino S, Agostinelli A, Ramacciotti G, Gheller F, Berta G, Koch I, Zanoletti E, Battel I, Cazzador D. Validity and reliability of the Italian translation of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity rating scale. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2023;43(1):12–9. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N2289 .
doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-N2289
pubmed: 36860145
pmcid: 9978297
Costa BOI, Machado LS, Augusto MM, Magalhães DDD, Alves TC, Pernambuco L. Training to analyze functional parameters with fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: a scoping review. Dysphagia. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-023-10614-w .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10614-w
pubmed: 37592140
Yoshida M, Kagaya H, Kamakura Y, Miura Y, Saitoh E, Okawa Y, Sanada H. Safety and the effectiveness of a new education program for nurses to assess swallowing function using fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Japan J Nurs Science: JJNS. 2020;17(2):e12313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12313 .
doi: 10.1111/jjns.12313
pubmed: 31883217
Benadom EM, Potter NL. The use of simulation in training graduate students to perform transnasal endoscopy. Dysphagia. 2011;26(4):352–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-010-9316-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-010-9316-y
pubmed: 21127910
Brady SL, Rao N, Gibbons PJ, Williams L, Hakel M, Pape T. Face-to-face versus online training for the interpretation of findings in the fiberoptic endoscopic exam of the swallow procedure. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:433–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S142947 .
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S142947
pubmed: 29928150
pmcid: 6003290
Warnecke T, Teismann I, Oelenberg S, Hamacher C, Ringelstein EB, Schäbitz WR, Dziewas R. Towards a basic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in acute stroke - identification of salient findings by the inexperienced examiner. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-13 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-13
pubmed: 19284543
pmcid: 2657144
Pilz W, Vanbelle S, Kremer B, van Hooren MR, van Becelaere T, Roodenburg N, Baijens LW. Observers’ agreement on measurements in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Dysphagia. 2016;31(2):180–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9673-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00455-015-9673-7
pubmed: 26803774
pmcid: 4824819
Rocca S, Pizzorni N, Valenza N, Negri L, Schindler A. Reliability and Construct Validity of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity rating scale: performance on videos and effect of Bolus consistency. Diagnostics (Basel Switzerland). 2022;12(8):1897. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081897 .
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081897
pubmed: 36010247
Cichero JAY, Lam PTL, Chen J, Dantas RO, Duivestein J, Hanson B, Kayashita J, Pillay M, Riquelme LF, Steele CM, Vanderwegen J. Release of updated International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Framework (IDDSI 2.0). J Texture Stud. 2020;51(1):195–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12481 .
doi: 10.1111/jtxs.12481
pubmed: 31498896
Team R, Core. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 373 Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ .
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.
Gwet KL. Testing the difference of correlated agreement coefficients for statistical significance. Educ Psychol Meas. 2016;76:609–37.
doi: 10.1177/0013164415596420
pubmed: 29795880
Landis JR, Koch GG. (1977) «The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data» Biometrics, vol. 33, pp. 159–174.
Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Jhon Wiley. New York; 1981. pp. 38–46.
Hey C, Pluschinski P, Pajunk R, Almnahameed LG, Sader R, Stover T, Zaretsky Y. (2015) Penetration–aspiration: is their detection in FEES. Reliable without video recording? Dysphagia. 30(4):418–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9616-3 .
Borders JC, O’Dea MB, McNally E, Norberg E, Kitila M, Walsh M, Liu R, Pisegna JM. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of laryngeal sensation testing with the Touch Method during Flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020;129(6):565–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489419901145 .
doi: 10.1177/0003489419901145
pubmed: 31958985
Pennbrant S, Nilsson MS, Öhlén J, Rudman A. Mastering the professional role as a newly graduated registered nurse. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(7):739–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.11.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.11.021
pubmed: 23260623