ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Nil per os in the management of oropharyngeal dysphagia-exploring the unintended consequences.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of the associations between dysphagia, liquid intake restrictions, and comorbidities in acute stroke: a retrospective chart review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- The crux of NPO paradox revealed by increased pneumonia incidence in post-stroke dysphagia patients with dietary restrictions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ethical Challenges and Considerations in Dysphagia Management: A Scoping Review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nil per os (NPO), also referred to as Nil by Mouth (NBM), is a health-related intervention of withholding food and fluids. When implemented in the context of a person with dysphagia, NPO aims to mitigate risks of aspiration. However, evidence demonstrating that NPO is beneficial as an intervention for people with dysphagia is lacking. This paper explores the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to the potential benefits and adverse effects of NPO and asserts that NPO is not a benign intervention. This paper argues for applying an ethics framework when making decisions relating to the use of NPO as an intervention for dysphagia, in particular addressing informed consent and a person's right to self-determination.
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.