Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39625497›Full record

SynthesisDysphagia2025

Upper Airway Sensory Testing in Dysphagia - Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research Directions.

Norita Regio, Ruby Hutton, Emma S Wallace

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Norita RegioDiscipline of Speech Pathology, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ruby HuttonDiscipline of Speech Pathology, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emma S WallaceDiscipline of Speech Pathology, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. emma.wallace@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5329-1222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adequate upper airway (oral, pharyngeal and laryngeal) sensation is crucial for safe and efficient swallowing and airway protection. Despite its importance, methods of upper airway sensory testing for individuals with dysphagia remain poorly defined. The aim of this study was to summarise and appraise current methods of upper airway sensory testing to inform dysphagia clinical practice and future research directions. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that reported a method of upper airway sensory testing in individuals with dysphagia were included. Of the 1187 studies identified and screened, 54 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of upper airway sensory testing were reported: Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing with Sensory Testing (n = 31), Cough Reflex Testing (n = 22), Gag Reflex Testing (n = 5) and Gustatory (taste) Testing (n = 2). Indeterminate "tests of sensory function" (n = 2) were also reported. Variability in methods was evident across studies and reporting was insufficient for reliable replication. This review provides a comprehensive overview of methods of upper airway sensory testing in the dysphagia literature for dysphagia clinicians and researchers. The results indicate a need to develop a valid and reliable upper airway sensory testing protocol for individuals with dysphagia to improve assessment and targeted treatments.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersCoughDeglutitionHumansLarynxReflexDysphagiaSensationSensory testingSwallow assessmentSystematic reviewUpper airway

Identifiers

PMID39625497
PMCPMC12328471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.