ArticleDysphagia2022
The Status of Dysphagia Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Dysphagia, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Current opinion of presentation of dysphagia and dysphonia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the status of dysphagia clinics and procedures applied in dysphagia clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians working in an outpatient dysphagia clinic were included. A 30-question survey inquiring about the descriptive information of the participants and their clinics, their clinical practice, and the tele-health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was administered via Google forms. The participants were asked to fill out the survey on behalf of their clinics. One survey was completed per dysphagia clinic. Twenty-three clinicians responded on behalf of their clinics. The number of patients and dysphagia evaluations decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.05). The COVID-19 screening procedures mostly performed before dysphagia evaluations were temperature check (n = 14, 60.9%), nasopharyngeal swab test (n = 9, 39.1%), anamnestic risk assessment (n = 6, 26.1%), and saturation test (n = 6, 26.1%). Protective equipments mostly used while dysphagia evaluations were surgical mask, FFP3 mask, standard gloves, glasses, and face shield. It was found that 69.6% (n = 16) of the dysphagia clinics were reported to be suitable for working under pandemic conditions, and 30.4% (n = 7) were reported to be unsuitable. The use of tele-health applications significantly increased from 13.0% (n = 3) to 52.2% (n = 12) (p = 0.003). The present study provides a general overview of the status of dysphagia clinics and procedures applied in dysphagia clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The study showed that working conditions, the number of patients, and the total number of evaluations have changed throughout the pandemic, and the use of tele-health applications increased.
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.