ArticleDysphagia2022
Gold Standard? Method of Citric Acid Solution Swallowing Test as a Screening Test for Patients with Tracheostomy.
Article in Dysphagia, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pilot Study of a Modified Swallowing Screening Tool for Critically Ill Patients in the Intensive Care Unit.Dysphagia · 2025Article
- Multiple system atrophy.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
- Predicting feeding-tube dependence in patients following endotracheal extubation: a two-item swallowing screen.BMC pulmonary medicine · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to apply various ranges of citric acid levels in the mouth and T-cannula to compare the validity with instrumental aspiration measures in patients with tracheostomy. Sixty-one patients underwent the citric acid cough reflex test (CRT) and videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS). Citric acid was delivered via facemask and T-cannula at concentrations of 0.4 mol/L, 0.6 mol/L, and 0.8 mol/L. Further, we recorded the coughing count and presence of ≥ 2 (C2) and ≥ 5 (C5) coughs. CRT via facemask at 0.4 mol/L C2, 0.6 mol/L C5, and 0.8 mol/L C2 and C5 were significantly associated with the presence of tracheal aspiration during VFSS. The sensitivity and specificity were optimized at 0.8 mol/L C2 for mouth inhalation and at 0.8 mol/L C5 for T-cannula inhalation. There was a significant difference in the coughing count during CRT at 0.4 mol/L and 0.8 mol/L via mouth inhalation between patients with or without tracheal aspiration, but not via T-cannula. The AUC for 0.8 mol/L facemask inhalation was 0.701. The optimal cut-off value of coughing count was thrice with 84.62% sensitivity and 50.00% specificity on the ROC curve. Afferent sensory nerve desensitization around and below the tracheostomy site could affect coughing reflex initiation and decrease the sensitivity of detecting aspiration in tracheotomized patients. The citric acid CRT via facemask can reliably detect tracheal aspiration and presence of coughing reflex compared to that via T-cannula in patients with tracheostomy.
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.