Abstract
Introduction
To validate the Group for Learning Useful and Performant Swallowing (GLUPS), a clinical tool dedicated to videofluoroscopy swallowing study (VFSS).
Methods
Forty-five individuals were recruited from January 2022 to March 2023 from the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery of University Hospital Saint-Pierre (Brussels, Belgium). Subjects underwent VFSS, which was rated with GLUPS tool by two blinded otolaryngologists and one speech-therapist. VFSS were rated twice with GLUPS within a 7-day period to assess test–retest reliability.
Results
Twenty-four patients and twenty-one controls completed the evaluations. The internal consistency (α = 0.745) and the test–retest reliability (rs = 0.941; p = 0.001) were adequate. GLUPS reported a high external validity regarding the significant correlation with the Penetration–Aspiration Scale (rs = 0.551; p = 0.001). Internal validity was adequate, because GLUPS score was significant higher in patients compared to controls (6.21 ± 4.42 versus 2.09 ± 2.00; p = 0.001). Interrater reliability did not report significant differences in the GLUPS sub- and total score among the independent judges. The mean GLUPS score of individuals without any evidence of VFSS abnormalities was 2.09/23 (95% CI 1.23–2.95), which supported that a GLUPS score ≥ 3.0 is suggestive of pathological VFSS.
Conclusions
GLUPS is a clinical instrument documenting the abnormal findings of oral and pharyngeal phases at the VFSS. GLUPS demonstrated high reliability and excellent criterion-based validity. GLUPS may be used in clinical practice for the swallowing evaluation at the VFSS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available on request,
References
Giraldo-Cadavid LF, Leal-Leaño LR, Leon-Basantes GA, Bastidas AR, Garcia R, Ovalle S, Abondano-Garavito JE (2017) Accuracy of endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing for oropharyngeal dysphagia. Laryngoscope 127(9):2002–2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26419
Cichero JA, Heaton S, Bassett L (2009) Triaging dysphagia: nurse screening for dysphagia in an acute hospital. J Clin Nurs 18(11):1649–1659
Heijnen BJ, Böhringer S, Speyer R (2020) Prediction of aspiration in dysphagia using logistic regression: oral intake and self-evaluation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277(1):197–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05687-z
Chan MKK, Cheng PPJ (2017) A comparison of two rating protocols for videofluoroscopic swallowing studyby inexperienced judges. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 19(6):562–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2016.1254681
Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Cordier R (2022) A Visuoperceptual Measure for Videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VMV): a pilot study of validity and reliability in adults with dysphagia. J Clin Med 11(3):724. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030724
Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL (1996) A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia 11(2):93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00417897
Lechien JR, Schindler A, De Marrez LG et al (2019) Instruments evaluating the clinical findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 129(3):720–736
Mahoney AS, Khalifa Y, Lucatorto E, Sejdić E, Coyle JL (2022) Cervical vertebral height approximates hyoid displacement in videofluoroscopic images of healthy adults. Dysphagia 37(6):1689–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-022-10414-8
Curtis JA, Laus J, Yung KC, Courey MS (2016) Static endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: transoral endoscopy during clinical swallow evaluations. Laryngoscope 126(10):2291–2294
Hutcheson KA, Barrow MP, Barringer DA, Knott JK, Lin HY, Weber RS et al (2017) Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST): scale development and validation. Cancer 123(1):62–70
Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y, Castell DO, Schleicher M, Sandidge J et al (2008) MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment—MBSImp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia 23(4):392–405
Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P (2007) Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope 117(10):1723–1727. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e318123ee6a
Daniels SK, Schroeder MF, McClain M, Corey DM (2006) Dysphagia in stroke: development of a standard method to examine swallowing recovery. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(3):347
Han TR, Paik N-J, Park JW (2001) Quantifying swallowing function after stroke: a functional dysphagia scale based on videofluoroscopic studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(5):677–682
Han TR, Paik N-J, Park J-W, Kwon BS (2008) The prediction of pe sistent dysphagia beyond six months after stroke. Dysphagia 23(1):59–64
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JRL: design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. AB: design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. DD: design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. JV: design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SH: design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. LB: data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. GVP: data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MV: data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. GC: data analysis and interpretation, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. RB: data analysis and interpretation, drafting, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. AR: data analysis and interpretation, drafting, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MC: development of GLUPS, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. LCB: development of GLUPS, final approval, and accountability for the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent
Patients consented to the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lechien, J.R., Blouin, A., Baudouin, R. et al. Validity and reliability of the Group for Learning Useful and Performant Swallowing (GLUPS) tool. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 817–826 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08313-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08313-1