ArticleBMJ open2021
Risk of aspiration pneumonia in paediatric patients with dysphagia who were found to have laryngeal penetration on the instrumental swallow evaluation: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Value of Laryngeal Penetration to Aspiration in a Cohort of Pediatric Patients.Dysphagia · 2024Article
- Laryngeal Penetration and Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia in Children with Dysphagia-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDysphagia affects several children in USA and around the globe. Videofluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) are the most objective studies to define swallowing function. The presence of tracheal aspiration during VFSS or FEES in children with dysphagia is associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. However, the association of laryngeal penetration with aspiration pneumonia remains unclear. This systematic review aims to assess the risk of aspiration pneumonia in children with dysphagia with laryngeal penetration on VFSS/FEES and compare it with children with tracheal aspiration and children with neither tracheal aspiration nor laryngeal penetration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINHAL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS and WHO Global Index Medicus. We will include studies published through 6 October 2021. Primary outcome will be the incidence of aspiration pneumonia. Secondary outcomes will be incidence of hospitalisation, paediatric intensive care unit admission, enteral tube requirement, growth, symptoms improvement and mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the studies. We will pool dichotomous outcomes to obtain an odd ratio (OR) and report with 95% CI. Continuous outcomes will be pooled to obtain mean difference and reported with 95% CI. Overall grade of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, and findings will be presented in a summary of findings table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a systematic review without contact with patients. Therefore, IRB approval is not required. Authors consent to publishing this review. Data will be kept for review by editors and peer reviewers. Data will be available to general public on request. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020222145.
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.