ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2024
Age and sex differences in sarcopenic dysphagia: A secondary data analysis.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Swallowing Pathophysiology in Primary Sarcopenia: A Multimodal Assessment in Older Adults.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- The clinical, serological and myopathological features of a cohort of Chinese patients with inclusion body myositis: a single center analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- The Pathophysiology of Sarcopenic Dysphagia: Consideration of Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies.Cureus · 2025Article
- Unveiling the relation between swallowing muscle mass and skeletal muscle mass in head and neck cancer patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Age and sex differences in sarcopenic dysphagia: A secondary data analysis.Journal of general and family medicine · 2024Article
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: Age and sex differences in sarcopenic dysphagia are unknown. The purpose is to characterize age and sex differences in sarcopenic dysphagia. Methods: A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort study using information from the Japanese database on sarcopenic dysphagia was performed. We investigated age and sex differences between sarcopenic dysphagia and other forms of dysphagia. We investigated whether differences in prognosis for swallowing function, as assessed by the Food Intake Level Scale, and activities of daily living (ADL), as assessed by the Barthel Index were influenced by age and sex in patients with sarcopenic dysphagia. Results: The study included 460 patients, including 229 men and 231 women, with a mean age of 81 ± 10 years. Fifty-eight percent of the patients had sarcopenic dysphagia. Age was independently associated with sarcopenic dysphagia (odds ratio (OR): 1.056, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.035, 1.078), although sarcopenic dysphagia could also be seen in those younger than 65 years. Sex was not independently associated with sarcopenic dysphagia. The age cut-off for the diagnosis of sarcopenic dysphagia was 82 years in all patients (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 0.644), 80 years in men (sensitivity, 0.619; specificity, 0.631), and 83 years in women (sensitivity, 0.723; specificity, 0.577). Sarcopenic dysphagia showed no significant differences in the improvement of swallowing function and ADL based on age and sex. Conclusions: Sarcopenic dysphagia was most common in older adults in their 80s or older. The possibility of sarcopenic dysphagia should be considered when dysphagia is present in people 80 years of age or older.
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.