ArticleBMC geriatrics2022
Screening of dysphagia in geriatrics.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Impact of Population Aging on Food Consumption of Rural Households in China: Cross-Sectional Study Across the Ten Geographic Regions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Symptom clustering of old adult dysphagic patient phenotypes by unsupervised machine learning using multidimensional characteristics: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Current trends and identified gaps in dysphagia research in Africa: A scoping review.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2025Article
- Screening for dysphagia in older people with dementia: Evidence of validity based on internal structure and reliability of the Caregiver Questionnaire - RaDID-QC.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oropharyngeal dysphagia is an underestimated symptom with various causes in the geriatric population. Clinical presentation is often insidious and dysphagia symptoms are seldomly mentioned by elderly patients although causing many life-threatening complications. The aim of this work was to introduce an easy applicable tool to be used by the caregivers and general practitioners for screening of dysphagia in geriatrics for early detection of at risk individuals.
methodsA sample of 200 Egyptian Arabic-speaking elderly patients (65 years or older) not complaining of dysphagia was recruited from nursing homes in Greater Cairo Area. They or their caregivers completed the designed screening tool, including; the designed questionnaires of dysphagia manifestations and eating habits. General, oral motor and bedside evaluation were also performed. In addition to filling in the EAT10 questionnaire and FEES that was performed for only suspected cases for the purpose of validation of the screening tool.
resultsThe dysphagia manifestations questionnaire was significantly correlated with EAT 10 with p value of 0.001. It was correlated in some of its aspects with FEES showing quite reliability with p values' range between 0.012 and 0.044. The Questionnaire of eating habits reliability of r- value of 0.568 slightly exceeding EAT10 reliability of r -value of 0.721 in the subjects under study. The cutoff point of total score of the dysphagia manifestations was > 5, with a sensitivity of 17.65% & a specificity of 94.20%. The cutoff point of total score of the bedside evaluation was ≤ 1 with a sensitivity of 66.9% & a specificity of 56.9%.
conclusionthe use of this easy applicable screening tool managed to suspect and later on diagnose cases with oropharyngeal dysphagia in non-complaining aging subjects.
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.