Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2025
Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing for dysphagia: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ferrari de Castro Mario Augusto, Dedivitis Rogério Aparecido, Luongo de Matos Leandro, Baraúna José Carlos, Kowalski Luiz Paulo, de Carvalho Moura Kauê, Herman Partezani Daniel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FEES and VFSS in evaluating swallowing in adults with dysphagia.
METHODS: A search for articles published between January 1991 and March 2020 was carried out in the MEDLINE EMBASE, COCHRANE, SciELO, and LILACS electronic databases. Based on the eligibility criteria, six articles were included.
RESULTS: FEES demonstrated a higher ability to diagnose pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration compared with VFSS, and slightly better performance in detecting premature spillage.
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences on the diagnostic performance of both tests. The choice of test should depend on availability, team experience, and patient's preference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
METHODS: A search for articles published between January 1991 and March 2020 was carried out in the MEDLINE EMBASE, COCHRANE, SciELO, and LILACS electronic databases. Based on the eligibility criteria, six articles were included.
RESULTS: FEES demonstrated a higher ability to diagnose pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration compared with VFSS, and slightly better performance in detecting premature spillage.
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences on the diagnostic performance of both tests. The choice of test should depend on availability, team experience, and patient's preference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.