ArticleDysphagia2025
Analysis of Patients' Dietary Status/Restrictions Following Instrumental Swallow Evaluations in Skilled Nursing Facilities.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Otolaryngology-performed Simplified Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (S-FEES): A Retrospective Analysis.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Post-Stroke Dysphagia: Moving Toward Evidence-Based, Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- A logistic regression-based nomogram model incorporating clinical, dietary, and nutritional data for predicting postoperative prognosis in elderly patients of grade A tertiary hospital.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many residents in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) present with dysphagia and receive altered diets or liquids to minimize the risk of complications. Limited access to timely instrumental evaluations of swallow may impede the best management of these dysphagic residents. De-identified FEES reports completed by a mobile FEES company during a single month, January 2019, were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the pre-study diet/liquid levels and the post-study diet/liquid recommendations. FEES reports (n = 952) were reviewed. Before the FEES evaluation, 209 residents were receiving only non-oral nutrition. After the FEES evaluation, 76% of these residents were recommended to receive oral nutrition. Before the FEES evaluation, 442 (46%) residents were receiving thickened liquids, after the FEES evaluation, 244 (26%) were recommended to have a less restrictive liquid level. Before the FEES evaluation, 576 (60%) residents were receiving altered food texture, after the FEES evaluation, 413 (43%) were recommended to have a less restrictive food texture. The percentage of residents recommended to receive thin liquids increased from 32 to 68% and those recommended to receive a regular diet increased from 18 to 34%. These data indicate that access to instrumental swallow evaluations in the SNF setting generally resulted in lifting liquid and diet restrictions for many residents in the cohort reviewed and potentially improved their quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.