Skip to main content

The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale: An Anatomically Defined and Image-Based Tool

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 724 Accesses

Abstract

Objectives: To develop, standardize, and validate the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale.

Methods: The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale was developed, standardized, and validated to provide reliable, anatomically defined, and image-based assessment of post-swallow pharyngeal residue severity as observed during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). It is a 5-point ordinal rating scale based on residue location (vallecula and pyriform sinus) and amount (none, trace, mild, moderate, and severe). Two expert judges reviewed a total of 261 FEES evaluations and selected a no residue exemplar and three exemplars each of trace, mild, moderate, and severe vallecula and pyriform sinus residue. Hard-copy color images of the no residue, 12 vallecula, and 12 pyriform sinus exemplars were randomized by residue location for hierarchical categorization by 20 raters with a mean of 8.3 years of experience (range 2–27 years) performing and interpreting FEES. Severity ratings for all images were performed by the same 20 raters, 2 weeks apart, and with the order of image presentations randomized. Intra-rater test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and construct validity were determined by pooled multi-category multi-rater kappa statistics.

Results: Residue ratings were excellent for intra-rater reliability for vallecula (kappa = 0.957 + 0.014) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.854 + 0.021), very good to excellent for inter-rater reliability for vallecula (kappa = 0.868 + 0.011) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.751 + 0.011), and excellent for validity for vallecula (kappa = 0.951 + 0.014) and pyriform sinus (kappa = 0.908 + 0.017).

Conclusions: Clinical uses include accurate classification of vallecula and pyriform sinus residue severity patterns as none, trace, mild, moderate, or severe for diagnostic purposes, determination of functional therapeutic change, and precise dissemination of shared information. Scientific uses include tracking outcome measures, demonstrating efficacy of interventions to reduce pharyngeal residue, investigating morbidity and mortality in relation to pharyngeal residue severity, and improving training and accuracy of FEES interpretation by students and clinicians. The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale is a reliable, validated, anatomically defined, and image-based tool to determine residue location and severity based on FEES.

Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The Yale pharyngeal residue severity rating scale: An anatomically defined and image-based tool. Dysphagia. 2015;30:521–8. doi:10.1007/s00455-015-9631-4 (Used and modified with kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Murray J, Langmore SE, Ginsberg S, Dostie A. The significance of oropharyngeal secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia. 1996;11:99–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearson WG, Molfenter SM, Smith ZM, Steele CM. Image-based measurement of post-swallow residue: the Normalized Residue Ratio Scale. Dysphagia. 2013;28:167–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Logemann J. Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dejaeger E, Pelemans W, Ponette E, Joosten E. Mechanisms involved in postdeglutition retention in the elderly. Dysphagia. 1997;12:63–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Farneti D. Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinological Italica. 2008;28:135–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tohara H, Nakane A, Murata S, Mikushi S, Ouchi Y, Wakasugi Y, Takashima M, Chiba Y, Uematsu H. Inter- and inter-rater reliability in fibroptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:884–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaneoka AS, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Field K, Scheel R, McNally E, Walsh MJ, O’Dea MB, Cabral H. The Boston Residue and Clearance Scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;65:312–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Donzelli J, Brady S, Wesling M, Craney M. Predictive value of accumulated oropharyngeal secretions for aspiration during video nasal endoscopic evaluation of the swallow. Ann Otol Rhinol. 2003;112:469–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Han TR, Paik NJ, Park JW. Quantifying swallowing function after stroke: a functional dysphagia scale based on videofluoroscopic studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:677–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenhuber E, Schima W, Schober E, Pokieser P, Stadler A, Scharitzer M, Oschatz E. Videofluoroscopic assessment of patients with dysphagia: pharyngeal retention is a predictive factor for aspiration. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:393–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Logemann JA, Williams RB, Rademaker A, Pauloski BR, Lazarus CL, Cook I. The relationship between observations and measures of oral and pharyngeal residue from videofluorography and scintigraphy. Dysphagia. 2005;20:226–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ. Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal severity? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31:425–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dyer JC, Leslie P, Drinnan MJ. Objective computer-based assessment of valleculae residue: is it useful? Dysphagia. 2008;23:7–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia. 1988;2:216–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leder SB, Murray JT. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Phys Med Rehabil Clin No Am. 2008;19:787–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu CH, Hsiao TY, Chen JC, Yeun-Chung C, Shiann-Yann L. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluoroscopic technique. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:396–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leder SB, Sasaki CT, Burrell MI. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of dysphagia to identify silent aspiration. Dysphagia. 1998;13:19–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leder SB, Karas DE. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in the pediatric population. Laryngoscope. 2000;110:1132–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Coyle JC, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11:93–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Link DT, Willging JP, Miller CK, Cotton RT, Rudolph CD. Pediatric laryngoscopic sensory testing during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: feasible and correlative. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000;109:899–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leder SB, Ross DA, Briskin KB, Sasaki CT. A prospective, double-blind, randomized study on the use of topical anesthetic, vasoconstrictor, and placebo during transnasal flexible fiberoptic endoscopy. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40:1352–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Daniels SK, Schroeder MF, DeGeorge PC, Corey D, Rosenbek JC. Effects of verbal cue on bolus flow during swallowing. J Am Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;16:140–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leder SB, Acton LA, Lisitano HL, Murray JT. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) with and without blue dyed food. Dysphagia. 2005;20:157–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

Definitions for severity of vallecula residue

I

None

0 %

No residue

II

Trace

1–5 %

Trace coating of the mucosa

III

Mild

5–25 %

Epiglottic ligament visible

IV

Moderate

25–50 %

Epiglottic ligament covered

V

Severe

>50 %

Filled to epiglottic rim

Definitions for severity of pyriform sinus residue

I

None

0 %

No residue

II

Trace

1–5 %

Trace coating of mucosa

III

Mild

5–25 %

Up wall to quarter full

IV

Moderate

25–50 %

Up wall to half full

V

Severe

>50 %

Filled to aryepiglottic fold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leder, S.B., Neubauer, P.D. (2016). The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale: An Anatomically Defined and Image-Based Tool. In: The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29899-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29899-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29897-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29899-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics