ArticlePloS one2024
Early swallowing rehabilitation and promotion of total oral intake in patients with aspiration pneumonia: A retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Internal Validation of D-DASH: A Prediction Model for Eating Difficulty at Discharge in Acute Heart Failure.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Swallowing rehabilitation in aspiration pneumonia: A scoping review of compensatory strategies and exercise training effectiveness.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Review
- Factors for Oral Intake Recovery in Acute Illness Patients With Dysphagia: A Prospective Cohort Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Early Rehabilitation in Patients With Stroke and Concomitant Kidney Disease: A Cohort Study With Claims Data.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- A Psychometric Evaluation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index Using Rasch Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the impact of early swallowing assessment and rehabilitation on the total oral intake and in-hospital mortality in patients with aspiration pneumonia.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with aspiration admitted between September 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016. The inclusion criterion was total oral intake before admission. A new protocol-based intervention for appropriate early oral intake was implemented on April 1, 2016. The protocol consisted of two steps. First, a screening test was conducted on the day of admission to detect patients who were not at high risk of dysphagia. Second, patients underwent a modified water swallowing test and water swallowing test. Patients cleared by these tests immediately initiated oral intake. The primary outcome, the composite outcomes of no recovery to total oral intake at discharge, and in-hospital mortality were compared between the patients admitted pre- and post protocol intervention.
resultsA total of 188 patients were included in the analysis (pre-, 92; post-, 96). The primary outcome did not differ between the pre- and post-intervention periods (23/92 [25.0%] vs. 18/96 [18.8%], p = 0.30). After adjusting for other variables, the intervention was significantly associated with a lower risk of composite outcomes (odds ratio, 0.22, 95%CI, 0.08-0.61, p = 0.004).
conclusionThe new protocol for early swallowing assessment, rehabilitation, and promotion of oral intake in patients admitted with aspiration pneumonia may be associated with the lower risk for the composite outcomes of in-hospital mortality and no recovery to total oral intake.
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.