ArticleCureus2018
Risk Factors for Dysphagia Following a Cervical Fusion in a Trauma Population.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Dysphagia in cervical spine diseases].HNO · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Dysphagia following a cervical fusion is a known complication; however, this has not been examined in the trauma population. We sought to identify risk factors that can be optimized in this population. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review on consecutive trauma patients who underwent a cervical fusion from 2014 to 2017 at a single institution with multiple surgeons. We included patients more than 18-years-old who were admitted through the emergency department with a diagnosis of acute cervical injury and underwent a cervical fusion during the same admission. We excluded patients who remained intubated postoperatively or underwent a tracheostomy. The primary outcome was dysphagia as evaluated by a bedside swallow test on postoperative day one by the nursing staff. This was followed by a standardized assessment performed by a speech therapist on postoperative day two in some cases. Variables of interest included sex, age, mechanism of injury, surgical approach, cervical levels, and Charlson comorbidity index. Univariate analysis was also utilized. Results Sixty patients met the study criteria. Nineteen patients (31.7%) developed dysphagia postoperatively. Mechanical falls were the most common injury mechanism (80%) and most surgical procedures were performed on the subaxial cervical spine (68.3%). Comparing the dysphagia groups, there was no significant difference among the confounding variables. Patients with dysphagia had an increased length of stay (10.6 ± 6.7 vs. 7.4 ± 3.1,
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.