ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2025
Speech-language therapists' views of oral feeding of infants on high-flow oxygen.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Introduction of oral feeding for young children receiving high-flow oxygen has recently gained interest. With limited literature, there are varied opinions regarding the safety of oral feeding in this population. Aim: This study describes speech-language therapists' (SLTs) views on oral feeding for infants receiving high-flow oxygen. Setting: A South African online survey study. Methods: A descriptive quantitative survey was distributed electronically via social networking sites. Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit expert SLTs. Twenty-one South African SLTs working with paediatric swallowing and feeding, from nine provinces responded. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Of 21 responses, only nine were fully complete, indicative of how few South African SLTs work with infants on high-flow oxygen. Current oral feeding practices varied with differences between nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Strategies for oral feeding included volume and time limitations, monitoring physiological stability and assessing for aspiration. Thin liquids were most commonly used. Varied opinions, with no protocols or guidelines for introduction of oral feeding of young children on high-flow oxygen, are reported. Conclusion: SLTs' practices regarding oral feeding in infants/children receiving high-flow oxygen are variable. Professionals share common approaches to determine feeding readiness and monitor tolerance. Without guidelines and standardised protocols, SLTs are left to make decisions based only on experience. A need exists for further research. Contribution: There is variability in initiation of oral feeds, highlighting the need for further data to inform uniform protocol and guideline development to enhance SLTs' decision-making.
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.