Impact of Quantitative Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Measures on Clinical Interpretation and Recommendations by Speech-Language Pathologists

Quantitative measures are available for adult videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) analysis but are yet to be seen routinely in clinical practice. This study explores agreement between traditional observational analysis and quantitative analysis, and the impact of analytical approaches on subsequent diagnosis and recommendations. One hundred adults referred for VFSSs with swallowing concerns were administered a standardised VFSS protocol. All VFSSs were analysed using three approaches: (1) a traditional observational analysis typically used by treating speech-language pathologists (SLPs), (2) quantitative analysis by two independent raters, and (3) binary subjective analysis by 11 independent raters. Three metrics were focussed on; pharyngeal constriction (PC), hyoid displacement (Hmax) and pharyngoesophageal segment opening (PESmax). All raters were blinded to others’ ratings. Treating SLPs using traditional observational analysis were provided with no instructions. Quantitative analysis used published Leonard and Kendall digital displacement measures. Binary subjective analysis involved rating each VFSS as normal versus impaired for the three metrics above. Treating SLPs using traditional observational analysis and quantitative analysis raters independently provided diagnostics and treatment plans. PC, Hmax and PESmax achieved fair agreement (Kappa = 0.33–0.36) between binary subjective analysis compared to substantial agreement (ICC = 0.77–0.94) for quantitative analysis. Reports of impairment were significantly lower in the traditional observational and binary subjective analyses compared with studies rated using the quantitative analysis (p < 0.05). Consequently, this resulted in significantly less rehabilitation recommendations when traditional observational analysis was used in comparison to the quantitative analysis. Quantitative measures to analyse VFSSs can be used in clinical practice producing increased inter-rater agreement and supporting more targeted rehabilitation recommendations than using a traditional observational VFSS analysis alone.