ArticleDysphagia2026
Pressure and Timing Differences Between Volitional and Non-Cued Saliva Swallows Measured with Pharyngeal High-Resolution Manometry.
Article in Dysphagia, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Volitional and spontaneous swallowing occur regularly throughout the day, yet most research has primarily focused on cued volitional swallowing. Differences in sensory input and degree of cortical involvement between swallow types may contribute to differences in swallowing physiology. Pharyngeal high-resolution manometry provides an opportunity to characterize both swallow types. Pressure generation and timing events during cued volitional (2 cc thin liquid) and non-cued saliva swallowing were evaluated in 50 healthy adults (n = 25 per sex). Paired t-tests revealed that on average, significantly greater pressures were generated during volitional swallows than non-cued saliva swallows in the velopharynx (p < 0.0001), tongue base (p = 0.045), and UES (post-closure) regions (p = 0.0058), while no significant differences were noted in the hypopharynx (p > 0.05). Positive linear relationships between swallow types were identified for velopharyngeal and tongue base pressures. Additionally, volitional swallows demonstrated longer UES relaxation durations than non-cued saliva swallows (p = 0.0003). While C2-C4 size differed between males (larger) and females (p < 0.0001), sex was not associated with any swallowing outcome measures. Overall, healthy adults generated higher pressures during volitional than non-cued saliva swallows in most pharyngeal regions, whereas the hypopharynx appeared less influenced by swallow type. Positive relationships between swallow types suggest that volitional assessments can serve as useful proxies for spontaneous function and may provide clinically relevant information when standard bolus swallows are difficult to obtain. The absence of sex effects supports uniform interpretation of manometric results across adults. These results underscore the importance of considering swallow type when evaluating swallowing physiology and designing clinical interventions.
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.