ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2022
[Postextubation dysphagia in intensive care patients : Current findings and clinical recommendations].
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction models for aspiration risk in stroke patients: a systematic review.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- A pragmatic approach to identifying postextubation dysphagia in critically ill surgical patients using the water swallow test.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA considerable number of critically ill and mechanically ventilated intensive care patients show pronounced dysphagia after extubation. Many studies have shown that postextubation dysphagia (PED) leads to a significant decline of outcome. The awareness, timely diagnostic procedures and integration of suitable treatment methods in intensive care units are therefore of great importance.
objectiveCurrent basic findings on PED, diagnostic possibilities, therapeutic methods as well as the development of concrete recommendations for clinical practice.
methodsA selective literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline and Cochrane using keywords.
resultsIn the literature the incidence PED is reported very heterogeneous but is probably at least 10% in intensive care patients after mechanical ventilation. The duration of intubation plays a critical role here. A multifactorial interaction of several factors is assumed to be the cause, whereby the impairment of laryngeal structures is of particular relevance. A PED leads to longer hospital stays, higher mortality, more reintubation and a higher number of patients with tube feeding. With respect to diagnostics, screening by trained nurses, clinical swallowing examinations and, in particular, the use of instrumental examinations by flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) are recommended. The treatment should include adaptive measures in the sense of an adapted diet but also functional exercises. Innovative approaches, such as electrical stimulation are also conceivable. The aim is primarily to avoid penetration and aspiration in order to counteract respiratory complications.
conclusionIn many intensive care units the clinical picture of PED is still neglected despite clear evidence. A simple algorithm in the treatment of intensive care patients can contribute to early detection and initiation of further steps. These should be integrated into clinical treatment standards.
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.