ArticleHNO2022
[Tasteless thickening agents? A competitive comparison].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThickening of drinks is a standard procedure in dysphagia therapy. Among other things, this adaptive procedure aims to prevent posterior leakage and reduce the demands placed on retarded swallowing reflexes by decelerating boluses. Studies show that taste perception can induce a negative attitude towards thickened fluids in patients. This study investigates whether different thickeners differ in taste.
methodsThe taste of eight arbitrarily chosen thickeners available on the German market were compared by 37 healthy adults. In the test setting, two thickeners combined with water competed against each other. Participants decided which one they preferred. Up to seven pairwise comparisons were performed by each participant. Overall, 224 comparisons were carried out. Based on these results, a relative taste grade was calculated using a probabilistic model and significance tests for differences were performed. RESULTS AND
conclusionThere are significant differences in taste between the different products, presumably depending on their respective basic ingredients. To respect individual patient's preferences, different thickeners should be tried out in dysphagia therapy. It remains unclear whether thickeners' taste differences remain relevant once other liquids such as coffee, tea, or juice are thickened.
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.