ReviewDysphagia2026
Bibliometric and Thematic Review of Research Studies Reporting Swallowing Data across Multiple Consistencies (2012-2024).
Review 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2015, the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) published a systematic review of evidence describing the impact of liquid consistency and food texture on swallowing [1, 2]. A recent update synthesized new evidence published since 2012 [3]. As part of full-text review, bibliometric and thematic analysis was completed for 465 articles, which met inclusion criteria of reporting quantitative measures of swallowing in humans across at least two consistencies, with a sample size ≥ 10 participants. Study characteristics were extracted using the universal applicable questions domain of the Framework for RigOr aNd Transparency In REseaRch on Swallowing (FRONTIERS; https://www.frontiersframework.com ), a critical appraisal tool for evaluating study quality and reporting in dysphagia research. Appraisals were performed independently by two reviewers. Data cleaning and discrepancy resolution were performed by the two lead authors. Thematic analysis identified patterns related to study characteristics, scientific rigor and reporting transparency. Parameters were considered well-reported if present in ≥ 60% of the articles, and poorly-reported when present in ≤ 25%. The included articles originated in 32 different countries around the world: 27% coming from Canada/USA, 23% from Europe, 27% from Asia, and 22% from Latin America, Oceania, and Africa/Middle East. With respect to study populations, 425 (91%) reported data for adult participants and 53 (11%) for pediatric participants, with 137 studies (29%) focusing on healthy swallowing. Critical appraisal highlighted gaps with respect to representation of diverse racial and ethnic groups, and a need for greater clarity in reporting the criteria used to define and measure dysphagia severity in future studies.
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.