Quantifying Pharyngeal Residue during Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies: Validation of Percentage-Based Visual-Perceptual Residue Ratings.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: Computerized, percentage-based assessments of pharyngeal residue (e.g., % filling of the valleculae) during videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS) offer a high level of precision, validity, and reliability compared to more frequently used visual-perceptual, categorical-based rating methods (e.g., mild, moderate, severe). Despite these advantages, clinical practice largely relies on visual-perceptual methods, given their ease, speed, and lack of need for specialized software or training. Percentage-based, visual-perceptual residue ratings could represent a scalable and clinically feasible alternative to computerized techniques; however, their accuracy and reliability have not been systematically investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to: (1) evaluate the accuracy of visual-perceptual, percentage-based ratings of pharyngeal residue during VFSS compared to pixel-based ground-truth measurements; (2) characterize the inter- and intra-rater reliability of these ratings; and (3) explore whether clinician characteristics are associated with rating accuracy. METHODS: An anonymous international survey was distributed to speech-language pathologists (SLP). Respondents were asked to provide visual-perceptual ratings of pharyngeal residue for 40 pairs of unique fluoroscopic images. Digital tracings were superimposed onto each image to guide percentage-based ratings. SLP respondents provided two types of residue ratings: Bolus Clearance Ratio (BCR; n = 20) and Residue Ratio Scale for the Valleculae (RRSV; n = 20). 50% of the images were randomly repeated to assess intra-rater reliability. Ratings were compared to ground-truth values. Statistical analyses were used to characterize rater accuracy and reliability. RESULTS: 129 SLP respondents participated in the survey, yielding an analysis of 6,569 visual-perceptual, percentage-based residue ratings. Residue ratings showed moderate agreement with ground-truth values for both BCR (ρc = 0.92) and RRSV (ρc = 0.94). Group-level inter-rater reliability was good-to-excellent for BCR (ICC = 0.90) and excellent for RRSV (ICC = 0.93). Intra-rater reliability was also excellent (BCR ICC = 0.92; RRSV ICC = 0.97). Greater accuracy was associated with clinicians with fewer years of clinical experience (r = 0.35, p = .006), clinicians who used of frame-by-frame VFSS review more frequently (τ = .228, p = .002), and clinicians who used standardized residue rating tools such as DIGEST and MBSImP more frequently. CONCLUSION: Visual-perceptual, percentage-based residue ratings during VFSS demonstrate acceptable accuracy and high inter- and intra-rater reliability. Clinician experience and practice patterns influence rating accuracy. These findings support the potential clinical utility of percentage-based visual-perceptual methods as a valid and accessible alternative to traditional ordinal residue scales.
