biostudies-literatureJaghbeer MStiftelserna Wilhelm och Martina LundgrensNU-Hospital Group Research and DevelopmentUniversity of GothenburgAnders & Carl Erikssons Foundation for Medical Research305-314https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9873722biostudies-literatureUnknown38(1)This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (r_s [Formula: see text] 0.62) with FEES. A difference across bolus viscosities identified that CA sensitivities (90.1%) and specificities ([Formula: see text] 84.7%) for thin liquids were greater than for thick liquids (71.0-77.4% sensitivities, 74.0-81.3% specificities). Results demonstrate high validity and moderate-good reliability of CA-trained SLPs to determine swallow safety when compared with FEES. Data support the use of CA as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination. CA should include pre-post respiratory sounds and requires specific training. Clinical implications: The authors advocate for holistic dysphagia management including instrumental assessment and ongoing CSE/review [Formula: see text] CA. Adding CA to the CSE/review does not replace instrumental assessment, nor should CA be used as a stand-alone tool.DysphagiaDysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES.PMC987372220150812Jaghbeer MBergstrom LSutt ALfalseDysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES.This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (r_s [Formula: see text] 0.62) with FEES. A difference across bolus viscosities identified that CA sensitivities (90.1%) and specificities ([Formula: see text] 84.7%) for thin liquids were greater than for thick liquids (71.0-77.4% sensitivities, 74.0-81.3% specificities). Results demonstrate high validity and moderate-good reliability of CA-trained SLPs to determine swallow safety when compared with FEES. Data support the use of CA as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination. CA should include pre-post respiratory sounds and requires specific training. Clinical implications: The authors advocate for holistic dysphagia management including instrumental assessment and ongoing CSE/review [Formula: see text] CA. Adding CA to the CSE/review does not replace instrumental assessment, nor should CA be used as a stand-alone tool.2023-01-01T00:00:00Z2023 Feb2026-03-27T16:48:25.039Z2025-04-04T13:36:31.14ZS-EPMC98737223583878510.1007/s00455-022-10468-8