SynthesisDysphagia2021
Approaches to Eating and Drinking with Acknowledged Risk: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Further Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The crux of NPO paradox revealed by increased pneumonia incidence in post-stroke dysphagia patients with dietary restrictions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A shared decision-making model about care for people with severe dementia: A qualitative study based on nutrition and hydration decisions in acute hospitals.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with dysphagia may consider eating and drinking with acknowledged risk (EDAR) instead of artificial hydration/nutrition. Timely consideration of complex issues is required including dysphagia reversibility, risk/benefit discussions, patient wishes, their capacity and best interests.
objectiveThis study aimed to establish if EDAR protocols improve care through a systematic literature review with a secondary aim to explore important factors for the development and success of a protocol.
methodsPUBMED, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched for English language articles to May 2019 with terms related to EDAR, dysphagia and end of life. Articles were agreed for inclusion by three independent reviewers. Levels of evidence were assessed using the modified Sackett scale. Study themes were identified and discussed.
results8 articles met the inclusion criteria with varied methodology. The highest level of evidence was III (cohort study). Most were limited to patients with dementia, stroke, in older person's wards or residential homes. Three articles described a systematic approach to EDAR for in-patients, reporting reductions in days nil-by-mouth until feeding plans are made and improvements in documentation of decision making, nutrition plans and capacity assessment. Five papers explored the views and knowledge of staff, patients and families/carers relating to EDAR and complex feeding decisions. Formal meta-analysis was not possible due to the level and mix of methodology.
conclusionThere is a paucity of evidence to determine if EDAR protocols improve care. However, support is emerging for a coordinated approach to managing EDAR. Findings suggest having a protocol is not enough; training and communication within teams is essential, together with incorporating feedback from patients and carers, and this justifies further work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32239275What 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.