ArticleDysphagia2025
Use of EAT-10 in Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease: Who Should be the Source of Information?
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.
- Dysphagia Management in Geriatric Medicine: Clinical Perspectives and Practice Patterns.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the compatibility between individuals with Alzheimer's disease (IwAD) and Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) results obtained from their caregivers and to compare EAT-10 results obtained from IwAD and caregivers with fiberoptic endoscopic swallow evaluation (FEES) results. EAT-10 questions were read aloud to the IwAD; simultaneously, the caregiver was asked to complete the EAT-10 by thinking of the IwAD in a different room. Aspiration, penetration, and residual status were first assessed as "present" or "absent" using FEES, then the Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) was used. EAT-10 items were analyzed with agreement between IwAD and caregiver.The sensitivity and specificity of IwAD and caregiver EAT-10 results for aspiration, penetration, and residue were assessed. EAT-10 cut-off scores were determined for IwAD according to different sources of information.Agreement of the EAT-10 total measurements of IwAD and caregiver was determined to be poor. There was no statistically significant correlation between PAS scores and EAT-10 total IwAD (p = 0.072) and caregiver (p = 0.195) scores. In the aspiration, penetration, and residue measurements of the participants, the area under the ROC curve was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) according to both IwAD and caregiver responses. It was observed that IwAD's statement for aspiration, penetration, and residue in mild stage AD; IwAD for aspiration, caregiver for penetration, both for residue in moderate stage; caregivers for advanced stage gave more accurate results in differentiating individuals with aspiration, penetration, and residue.In conclusion, in this study, according to the information obtained from IwAD or caregivers, it was determined that the agreement between EAT-10 and FEES results was low, especially in recognizing IwAD with aspiration. Therefore, the use of the EAT-10 in IwAD does not provide adequate diagnosis; there is a need to develop other swallowing assessment tools that also provide information about the effectiveness and safety of swallowing specific to IwAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39466385What 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.