ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2022
Screening Tools Designed to Assess and Evaluate Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Adult Patients: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Article
- Development of a three-item short form of the EAT-10 for screening suspected dysphagia in hospitalized older adults: findings from a multicentre study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Current Technological Advances in Dysphagia Screening: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Swallowing Assessment in Post-Comatose Patients: A Feasibility Study on the SWADOC Tool.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Models of Care in Providing Comprehensive Healthcare on Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review with a TIDieR Checklist Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Article
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
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (OD) significantly decreases a patient's quality of life and poses a high economic burden to institutions. In this sense, evaluation and assessment are important interventions for health professionals, although current tools and instruments are multiple and are dispersed in the literature. The aim of this review was to map existing screening tools to assess and evaluate OD in adult patients, identify their relevant clinical parameters and respective contexts of use and provide a systematic approach and summary to better inform practice. A scoping review was developed guided by the JBI methodology and using PRISMA-ScR to report results published between 2014 and 2021, in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Databases included Medline, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Scielo, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, OpenGrey and B-On. Mendeley was used to store and screen data. A total of 33 studies were included in the study, of which 19 tools were identified, some being intervention-based tools and others an algorithm for decision. The most common context used was in the general population and older adults. Regarding clinical parameters, the most common were food consistency, presence of the cough reflex, swallowing effort, voice changes and weight. As oropharyngeal dysphagia concerns important risks for the patient, a rigorous assessment must be performed. In this sense, the review identified specific disease-related tools and more general instruments, and it is an important contribution to more efficient dysphagia screening and prevention.
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.