ArticleDysphagia2013
What information do UK speech and language therapists use when making oral versus nonoral feeding recommendations for adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia?
Article in Dysphagia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impaired Tongue Function as an Indicator of Laryngeal Aspiration in Adults with Acquired Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review.Dysphagia · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of dysphagia severity on clinical decision making via telerehabilitation.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study explored what information UK speech and language therapists (SLTs) use when recommending oral versus nonoral feeding in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia. This study differed from previous research on this topic by including a greater number of participants; focusing on UK-based clinicians; exploring whether different information was considered dependent on whether the person with oropharyngeal dysphagia had had a stroke, had motor neurone disease, or had dementia; and investigating how often videofluoroscopy was used when making these decisions. The current study surveyed UK-based SLTs via an online questionnaire. When asked to rate the ten most important factors involved when making oral versus nonoral decisions, UK SLTs chose 9 of the 13 factors chosen by US-based SLTs in an earlier study. Furthermore, the information considered important in oral versus nonoral decision-making varied depending on the diagnosis of the person with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Finally, the SLTs in the current study reported that they did not frequently use videofluoroscopy to make oral versus nonoral recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.