ReviewAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2018
Insights Into Oropharyngeal Dysphagia From Administrative Data and Clinical Registries: A Literature Review.
Review in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Stroke Dysphagia: Moving Toward Evidence-Based, Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- An Exploratory Classification Framework for Poststroke Dysphagia Severity Using Administrative Data: Administrative Data Dysphagia Severity Scale.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Physical therapy registries worldwide: A systematic review.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Gene delivery to the hypoglossal motor system: preclinical studies and translational potential.Gene therapy · 2021Review
- Diagnosis and treatments for oropharyngeal dysphagia: effects of capsaicin evaluated by newly developed ultrasonographic method.Journal of smooth muscle research = Nihon Heikatsukin Gakkai kikanshi · 2020Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The call for data-driven health care has been bolstered by the digitization of medical records, quality initiatives, and payment reform. Administrative databases and clinical registries are increasingly being used to study oropharyngeal dysphagia and to facilitate data-driven decision making. The objective of this work was to summarize key findings, etiologies studied, data sources used, study objectives, and quality of evidence of all original research articles that have investigated oropharyngeal dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia using administrative or clinical registry data to date. Method: A literature search was completed in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar (January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2017). Each study that met inclusion criteria was rated for quality of evidence on a 5-point scale. Results: Eighty-four research articles were included in the final analysis (n = 221-1,649,871). Over the past 20 years, the number of new publications in this area has quintupled. Most of the administrative database and clinical registry studies of dysphagia have been retrospective cohort studies and cross-sectional studies and limited to quality of evidence levels of 3-4. In these studies, much has been learned about risk factors for dysphagia and pneumonia in defined populations and health care costs and usage. Little has been gleaned from these studies regarding swallowing physiology or dysphagia management. Conclusions: Investigators are just beginning to develop the methods to study oropharyngeal dysphagia using administrative data and clinical registries. Future research is needed in all areas, from the fundamental issue of how to identify individuals with dysphagia with high sensitivity in these data sets to evaluating treatment effectiveness. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6066515.
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.