Search

Objective Static endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (SEES) is an instrumental evaluation developed for in‐office identification of patients who may benefit from a modified barium swallow study (MBSS). We aim to determine the predictive value of SEES for evaluating dysphagia. Methods A retrospective case series was performed on adults evaluated for dysphagia using SEES followed by MBSS at a single tertiary care center. Studies were evaluated by two blinded expert raters. Results Fifty‐eight patients were included. Thin liquid penetration on SEES had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.70‐0.95), 0.63 (95% CI 0.24‐0.91), 0.91 (95% CI 0.76‐0.98), and 0.5 (0.19‐0.81), respectively, for predicting thin liquid penetration on MBSS, and 1.0 (95% CI 0.59‐1.0), 0.29 (95% CI 0.15‐0.47), 0.23 (95% CI 0.10‐0.41), and 1.0 (95% CI 0.69‐1.0) for predicting thin liquid aspiration on MBSS. Thin liquid aspiration on SEES had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.67 (95% CI 0.09‐0.99), 0.85 (95% CI 0.66‐0.96), 0.33 (95% CI 0.04‐0.78), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.79‐1.0), respectively, for predicting thin liquid aspiration on MBSS. Conclusions SEES may be used as an objective in‐office test to screen for aspiration and penetration. Thin liquid penetration on SEES is moderately sensitive for predicting penetration on MBSS. Absence of thin liquid penetration or aspiration on SEES has a high NPV for excluding aspiration on MBSS. Abnormalities on SEES or the need to view the entire swallowing mechanism should prompt an MBSS for a more complete evaluation of dysphagia. Level of Evidence: 4, Static endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (SEES) is an instrumental evaluation developed for in‐office identification of patients who may benefit from a modified barium swallow study (MBSS). SEES may be used as an objective in‐office test to screen for aspiration and penetration. Absence of thin liquid penetration or aspiration on SEES has a high NPV for excluding aspiration on MBSS.

Objectives Although patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be useful for assessing quality of life, they can be complex and cognitively burdensome. In this study, we prospectively evaluated a simple patient‐reported voice assessment measure on a visual analog scale (VAS voice) and compared it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI‐10). Study design Prospective survey. Methods An abbreviated voice measure was designed by a team of otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, and patients that consisted of four VAS questions related to (a) a global question of voice disturbance, (b) physical function of voice, (c) functional issues, and (d) emotional handicap. All English‐speaking patients presenting to an academic laryngology clinic for a voice complaint were included. Internal consistency and validity were assessed with comparison to the VHI‐10. Results A total of 209 patients were enrolled. Ninety‐two percent of patients reported understanding the survey. The four‐item VAS survey was highly correlated with VHI‐10 score (Pearson correlation .81, P