Pharyngeal Residue Scoring in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: Reliability Comparison and Applicability Among Different Scales.

Abstract

Several scales to assess pharyngeal residue in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) are currently available. The study aimed to compare the reliability and the applicability in real clinical practice among four rating scales: the Pooling Score (P-SCORE), the Boston Residue and Clearance Scale (BRACS), the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS), and the Residue Ordinal Rating Scale (RORS). Twenty-five FEES videos were evaluated four times, once for each scale, by four speech and language pathologists. To test intra-rater reliability, the same raters re-assessed the videos two weeks apart. To test the applicability, raters recorded the time required to complete each assessment and the perceived difficulty/ease on a visual-analog scale (VAS). The intra-rater and the inter-rater reliability were calculated with Cohen's weighted Kappa and the Fleiss weighted Kappa, respectively. Time and perceived difficulty/ease scores were compared. The intra-rater reliability analysis showed almost perfect agreement for YPRSRS (k = 0.91) and RORS (k = 0.83) and substantial agreement for P-SCORE (k = 0.76) and BRACS (k = 0.74). Pairwise comparison showed no significant differences among the scales. The inter-rater reliability for the YPRSRS (k = 0.78) was significantly higher than P-SCORE (k = 0.52, p < 0.001), BRACS (k = 0.56, p < 0.001), and RORS (k = 0.65, p = 0.005). The BRACS required the longest time (p < 0.001) and was perceived as the most difficult scale (p < 0.001). The RORS was perceived as the easiest scale (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the YPRSRS showed the highest reliability, while raters perceived the RORS as the easiest to score. These results will allow clinicians to consciously choose which scale to use in clinical practice.