European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: Part 2 of a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alves Thaís Coelho, Furkim Ana Maria, Schindler Antonio, Pizzorni Nicole, Onofri Suely Mayumi Motonaga, da Silva Roberta Gonçalves
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The main objective of this scoping review was to describe the qualitative and quantitative parameters of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) protocols, including their operational definitions and scales used in adults with neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia.
METHODS: Six databases (Wiley Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and LILACS) were extensively searched, following the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, without restriction on study design, publication date, or language. Two blind independent raters selected, reviewed, and extracted all content according to preestablished exclusion criteria. A third rater resolved any divergences between them.
RESULTS: Altogether, 6,033 abstracts were screened, leading to the inclusion of 115 publications. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the terminology and operational definitions used to describe the qualitative parameters. Additionally, 20 different temporal quantitative parameters were identified, although only half of them were accompanied by operational definitions. Diverse classification methods were also reported, with author-defined measures being more common than validated scales.
CONCLUSION: The parameters derived from FEES in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia are not uniformly defined or analyzed.
METHODS: Six databases (Wiley Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and LILACS) were extensively searched, following the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, without restriction on study design, publication date, or language. Two blind independent raters selected, reviewed, and extracted all content according to preestablished exclusion criteria. A third rater resolved any divergences between them.
RESULTS: Altogether, 6,033 abstracts were screened, leading to the inclusion of 115 publications. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the terminology and operational definitions used to describe the qualitative parameters. Additionally, 20 different temporal quantitative parameters were identified, although only half of them were accompanied by operational definitions. Diverse classification methods were also reported, with author-defined measures being more common than validated scales.
CONCLUSION: The parameters derived from FEES in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia are not uniformly defined or analyzed.