ArticleHeliyon2024
Appropriate volumes of water for non-invasive swallowing assessments of nursing home residents: A descriptive correlational study.
Article in Heliyon, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The volume of water that can be swallowed without risk of choking or aspiration is a common way to assess swallowing function in patients with dysphagia in institutional settings. However, no evidence-based study has established what volumes of water are safest and most effective for testing. Objective: A validated portable non-invasive device for swallowing and respiration (NIDSAR) was employed to determine safe swallowing volumes for nursing home residents with different levels of dysphagia. Methods: Participants (N = 94) were grouped by the absence or presence of a nasogastric (NG)-tube: those without an NG-tube (n = 60) and those with an NG-tube (n = 34).Swallowing 1 ml, 3 ml, and 5 ml of water was assessed with the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) and compared with measures with objective scores from the portable NIDSAR. In addition, swallowing measures were compared between groups, as well as relationships with participant-reported choking frequency. Results: Participants without an NG-tube had significant different scores for swallowing during the respiration phase and pharyngeal stage for both 3 ml (t = 3.894 to 4.277, p < .001) and 5 ml (t = 1.999 to 2.944, p < .05 to p < .01) compared with participants with an NG-tube. Discussion: Our research revealed that participants with frequent episodes of choking required more time to swallow 1 ml compared with 3 ml or 5 ml which might be a function of piecemeal swallowing. Conclusions: NIDSAR measures with 3 ml and 5 ml boluses of water are effective volumes for safely assessing swallowing ability of nursing home residents with dysphagia without risk of choking or aspiration.
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.