ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Linking the impact of aspiration to host variables using the BOLUS framework: support from a rapid review.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this rapid review was to identify the level of evidence for a previously proposed theoretical framework to assess risks associated with prandial aspiration using the host as a central theme. Methods: Covidence software was used to search two databases (PubMed and Web of Science). PEDro scale was utilized to determine the quality of individual studies. Data points were evaluated for level of support and determined to be either Results: The rapid review process resulted in a limited number of publications investigating host variables impact on outcomes for patients with swallowing disorders. Overall, it yielded 937 articles, of which, upon review, 16 articles were selected for data extraction. There was a strong level of evidence to support that (a) as viscosity and density of aspirate increased, so did the likelihood of general medical complications, (b) poor oral care and oral health increase the risk of a pulmonary or general medical complication, and (c) the presence of oropharyngeal or laryngeal tubes increases the risk of a pulmonary consequence. There was moderate evidence to support the impact of amount and frequency of aspiration on outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to determine relationships for all other aspects of the BOLUS framework. Conclusion: Additional evidence to support the BOLUS framework was obtained; however, the number of studies was limited. A more thorough review such as a systematic review should be employed.
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.