Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238574›Full record

SynthesisDysphagia2024

Presbyphagia: A Conceptual Analysis of Contemporary Proposals and Their Influences on Clinical Diagnosis.

Manuel Matías Ambiado-Lillo

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manuel Matías Ambiado-LilloFonoaudiología, Facultad de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique, Chile. mambiado@unap.cl.ORCID 0000-0002-4653-3983
Arturo Prat University · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swallowing is an essential process to maintain homeostasis in the human body. With aging, changes occur in both central and peripheral structures, giving rise to presbyphagia, involving morphological and functional alterations in swallowing. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of presbyphagia and its relationship with dysphagia. The primary objective of this research is to analyze the proposed definitions for the term "presbyphagia" in specialized literature and, secondarily, to assess how these definitions can influence the diagnosis of oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). A systematic review was conducted to analyze the proposed definitions of presbyphagia and their impact on dysphagia diagnosis. Three main approaches to the definitions of presbyphagia were identified: (1) presbyphagia as an alteration in the swallowing process in healthy older adults, (2) presbyphagia as a swallowing disorder compensated by the physiological potential of healthy older adults, and (3) presbyphagia as a synonym for dysphagia. This study addresses the need for a clear definition of presbyphagia in older adults. It is concluded that presbyphagia should be understood as the etiology of OD rather than a compensated disorder or a synonym. This has significant implications for the diagnosis and treatment of swallowing disorders in the aging population. Given the ongoing nature of scientific discussion in this field, further research is required.

Indexed as

DeglutitionDeglutition DisordersAgedAgingHumansTerminology as TopicAgingHealthy older adultsOropharyngeal dysphagiaPresbyphagiaSwallowing

Identifiers

PMID38238574
OpenAlexW4390966247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.