Cervical auscultation as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination: A comparison with fibre-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing

Abstract

This prospective, single-blinded study investigated the validity and reliability of cervical auscultation (CA) under two conditions; (1) CA-only, using isolated swallow-sound clips, and (2) CSE + CA, using extra clinical swallow examination (CSE) information such as patient case history, oromotor assessment, and the same swallow-sound clips as condition one. The two CA conditions were compared against a fibre-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) reference test. Each CA condition consisted of 18 swallows samples compiled from 12 adult patients consecutively referred to the FEES clinic. Patients’ swallow sounds were simultaneously recorded during FEES via a Littmann E3200 electronic stethoscope. These 18 swallow samples were sent to 13 experienced dysphagia clinicians recruited from the UK and Australia who were blinded to the FEES results. Samples were rated in terms of (1) if dysphagic, (2) if the patient was safe on consistency trialled, and (3) dysphagia severity. Sensitivity measures ranged from 83–95%, specificity measures from 50–92% across the conditions. Intra-rater agreement ranged from 69–97% total agreement. Inter-rater reliability for dysphagia severity showed substantial agreement (r_s = 0.68 and 0.74). Results show good rater reliability for CA-trained speech-language pathologists. Sensitivity and specificity for both CA conditions in this study are comparable to and often better than other well-established CSE components.

Keywords::

• Dysphagia
• assessment
• evidence
• validity
• reliability

Acknowledgements

The researchers acknowledge and thank Dr Julie Cichero for her input as an external advisor. Kjell Pettersson is acknowledged and thanked for his role as a consultant statistician. Appreciation is also extended to the following speech-language pathologists; Nicola Clayton, Imogen Davies, Cindy Dilworth, Nicola Graham, Lisa Howard, Sarah Kopeshke, Margaret Manning, Lyndsey McAlorum, Kelly Richardson, Anna-Liisa Sutt, Sarah Terry, Sienna Tuckerman, Andrea Whitehead, and Bethany Wilson.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.