SynthesisDysphagia2020
Interventions for Feeding and Swallowing Disorders in Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.
Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconsidering antipsychotic-associated dysphagia in acute heart failure: implications for multidisciplinary risk management.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Article
- Can invasive interventions be avoided with a holistic swallowing therapy program in older patients in intensive care units: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes or oral intake?Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Neurodivergence, intersectionality, and eating disorders: a lived experience-led narrative review.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Review
- Article
- A New Screening Tool for Rapid Diagnosis of Functional and Environmental Factors Influencing Adults with Intellectual Disabilities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Dishes Adapted to Dysphagia: Sensory Characteristics and Their Relationship to Hedonic Acceptance.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feeding and swallowing disorders are prevalent in adults with Intellectual Disability (ID) and can potentially lead to discomfort, malnutrition, dehydration, aspiration, and choking. Most common interventions include: diet modification, compensatory strategies, swallowing therapy, and non-oral feeding. Despite their common use, the research evidence for these interventions is lacking. The current study aimed to systematically review the evidence for the safety and the effectiveness of interventions for feeding and swallowing disorders in adults with ID. Seven electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed from online availability to March 2019, with no language restrictions. Eligibility criteria encompassed experimental or non-experimental study design, adults (> 18 years) with ID and feeding and/or swallowing disorders (any etiology and severity) and any intervention for feeding and/or swallowing disorders. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Downs and Black checklist. Four articles met the inclusion criteria. All included studies considered enteral feeding as an intervention strategy and had a retrospective observational design. Overall, included studies reported positive change in nutritional status and a high incidence of adverse events following enteral feeding initiation. Risk of bias was high with variability in methodological quality. The safety and effectiveness of interventions for feeding and swallowing in adults with ID is unclear. This review highlights the lack of evidence-based practice in this area. Directions for further research are provided. Before enteral feeding initiation, risks and benefits should be appropriately balanced on an individual basis, and caregivers should be involved in the decision-making process.
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.