ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2022
Incidence, clinical signs, and videofluoroscopic swallow study abnormalities associated with airway penetration and aspiration in 100 dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence, clinical signs, and videofluoroscopic swallow study abnormalities associated with airway penetration and aspiration in 100 dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Videofluoroscopic swallow study abnormalities identify aerodigestive disorders in dogs with respiratory disease versus healthy controls.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- A One Health review of aerodigestive disease in dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicineReview
- Incidence and characterization of aerophagia in dogs using videofluoroscopic swallow studies.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS) utilizing penetration-aspiration (P-A) scoring assesses airway protection in people. On VFSS, penetration (ingesta or secretions immediately cranial to the vocal folds) and aspiration (material caudal to the vocal folds) are associated with increased risk of lung injury in people. Penetration-aspiration (P-A) scoring has been validated in animal models, but the incidence of P-A, clinical signs (CS), and dysphagic disorders associated with P-A in dogs are unknown.
objectivesUsing VFSS, identify the incidence of P-A, compare CS between dogs with and without P-A, and identify predisposing dysphagic abnormalities for P-A. ANIMALS: One hundred client-owned dogs.
methodsSequential VFSS and associated medical records from dogs presenting to the veterinary teaching hospitals at Auburn University (n = 53) and the University of Missouri (n = 47) were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks, multiple linear regression, and Spearman rank order correlation (P < .05).
resultsOn VFSS, the incidence of pathologic P-A was 39%. No significant differences in CS were found between dogs with or without P-A (P > .05), with 14/39 dogs with P-A presenting without respiratory CS. Pharyngeal (P < .001) and esophageal (P = .009), but not oral-preparatory (P = .2) dysphagia was more common with P-A. Pharyngeal weakness (P < .001) and esophago-oropharyngeal reflux (EOR; P = .05) were independent predictors of P-A and were moderately and weakly positively correlated with P-A score respectively (P < .001, r = 0.489; P = .04, r = 0.201).
conclusionsPenetration-aspiration occurs in dogs in the absence of respiratory CS (i.e., occult P-A). Dogs with pharyngeal weakness and EOR should be considered at risk for P-A.
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.