ArticleDysphagia2025
Fiberoptic Endoscopy Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) Findings Associated with High Pneumonia Risk in a Cohort of Patients at Risk of Dysphagia.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Swallowing Function is Important Upon Admission to Community-Based Integrated Care Wards. A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aspiration detected in the fiberoptic endoscopy evaluation of swallowing (FEES) has been inconsistently associated with pneumonia, with no evidence of the risk of pneumonia from other alterations in swallowing safety detected in FEES. We conducted a dynamic, ambidirectional cohort study involving 148 subjects at risk of dysphagia in a tertiary university hospital. Our aim was to determine the risk of pneumonia attributed to alterations in swallowing safety detected during FEES. We used multivariate negative binomial regression models to adjust for potential confounders. The incidence density rate (IR) of pneumonia in patients with tracheal aspiration of any consistency was 26.6/100 people-years (RR 7.25; 95% CI: 3.50-14.98; P < 0.001). The IR was 19.7/100 people-years (RR 7.85; 95% CI: 3.34-18.47; P < 0.001) in those with laryngeal penetration of any consistency and 18.1/100 people-years (RR 6.24; 95% CI: 2.58-15.09; P < 0.001) in those with pharyngeal residue of any consistency. When adjusted for aspiration, the association of residue and penetration with pneumonia disappeared, suggesting that their risk of pneumonia is dependent on the presence of aspiration and that only aspiration is independently associated with pneumonia. This increased risk of pneumonia was significant in uni- and multivariate negative binomial regression models. We found an independently increased risk of pneumonia among patients with dysphagia and aspiration detected during FEES. Alterations in the oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing, without aspiration, did not increase the risk of pneumonia.
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.