Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35466245›Full record

ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2022

Screening Tools Designed to Assess and Evaluate Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Adult Patients: A Scoping Review.

Rafael A Bernardes, Arménio Cruz, Hugo Neves, Vítor Parola, Nuno Catela

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rafael A BernardesThe Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA:E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Avenida Bissaya Barreto, 3004-011 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2110-7483
Arménio CruzThe Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA:E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Avenida Bissaya Barreto, 3004-011 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3254-3176
Hugo NevesThe Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA:E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Avenida Bissaya Barreto, 3004-011 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6843-6228
Vítor ParolaThe Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA:E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Avenida Bissaya Barreto, 3004-011 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0050-5004
Nuno CatelaPolytechnic of Leiria-School of Health Sciences, Morro do Lena-Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3713-0111
Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra · PTInstituto Politécnico de Leiria · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

deglutitiondeglutition disordersoutcome and process assessmentreview

Identifiers

PMID35466245
PMCPMC9036293
OpenAlexW4224605630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.