Erratum Title: Special Considerations for the Pediatric Population Relating to a Swallow Screen Versus Clinical Swallow or Instrumental Evaluation Author: Amy L. Delaney SIG 13 Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), February 2015, Vol. 24, 26–33. DOI: 10.1044/sasd24.1.26 There is debate in speech-language pathology about the utility of a ... Erratum
Erratum  |   June 01, 2015
Erratum
Author Notes
Article Information
Swallowing, Dysphagia & Feeding Disorders / Erratum
Erratum   |   June 01, 2015
Erratum
SIG 13 Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), June 2015, Vol. 24, 125. doi:10.1044/sasd24.3.125
SIG 13 Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), June 2015, Vol. 24, 125. doi:10.1044/sasd24.3.125
Title: Special Considerations for the Pediatric Population Relating to a Swallow Screen Versus Clinical Swallow or Instrumental Evaluation
Author: Amy L. Delaney
SIG 13 Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), February 2015, Vol. 24, 26–33.
DOI: 10.1044/sasd24.1.26
There is debate in speech-language pathology about the utility of a swallow screen to determine aspiration risk rather than use of a clinical swallow evaluation (CSE) or direct referral to instrumental assessment. In healthcare, screening tests are generally used in healthy individuals to identify those at increased risk of having a disease or disorder, and to determine need for further testing such as implemented in mammography or colonoscopy (Evans, Galen, & Britt, 2005; Grimes & Schultz, 2002). Swallow screens are currently used in adults who have suffered an event leading to concern for aspiration. An example of a formal swallow screen is a procedure such as a 3-ounce water challenge (Suiter & Leder, 2008; Suiter, Leder & Karas, 2009). A failed screening is when a patient is unable to consume the prescribed volume without interruption, or coughing, choking or wet vocal quality during or within the one-minute following completion of the task. The procedure is assessing for aspiration risk to reduce unnecessary instrumental swallow evaluations. Studies have consistently revealed high sensitivity for determining the absence of aspiration with thin liquids with a passed screening, but low specificity and a high false-positive rate for determining presence of aspiration with a failed screening. More than one-half of those that failed the screening did not aspirate during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) instrumental assessment (Suiter & Leder, 2008; Suiter et al., 2009). These findings were replicated in a pediatric population with 61% (34/56) of children who failed the screening were not found to aspirate on instrumental evaluation (Suiter et al., 2009).
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 13 Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.