ArticleCoDAS2025
Relation between risk of dysphagia and oral intake level in cancer patients.
Article in CoDAS, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo relate the self-perceived risk of dysphagia with the level of oral intake in hospitalized oncology patients.
methodsThis cross-sectional study had a convenience sample of adults and older adults diagnosed with cancer and hospitalized in an oncology hospital in southern Brazil. Data on sex, age, length of hospitalization, comorbidities, oncological diagnosis, treatment, and feeding route were obtained from the participants' medical records. The level of oral intake was classified using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS), and the risk of dysphagia was identified using the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). The relationship between these variables was analyzed using Spearman's correlation coefficient.
resultsThe study included 60 participants - 42 with solid tumors and 18 with hematological tumors; 35 females (58.3%) and 25 males(41.7%), with a mean age of 58.5 ± 13.1 years. Of these, 56 exclusively used the oral route for feeding (93.3%), and 18 were at risk of dysphagia (30%). Older patients were at higher risk for dysphagia than adults (p-value = 0.020). EAT-10 scores (median = 0; IQR = 0-4) were significantly inversely correlated (RHO = -0.463; p-value = 0.000) with FOIS classifications (N: level 2 = 2; level 3 = 2; level 4 = 2; level 5 = 12; level 7 = 42).
conclusionThe study found that lower EAT-10 scores corresponded to higher FOIS levels. In other words, the lower the risk of dysphagia, the lower the susceptibility to using alternative feeding routes.
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.