Trial reportBMC geriatrics2025
Evaluating swallowing capacity in older adults with dysphagia: high protein, low carbohydrate smoothie formulas versus commercial formula.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04901182 (The Effect of Nutrition-dense, Blenderized Enteral Nutrition From Natural Ingredients on Swallowing Capacity to Prevent Suffocation in the Elderly by Using Flexible Endoscopic Examination of Swallowing), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
The Effect of Nutrition-dense, Blenderized Enteral Nutrition From Natural Ingredients on Swallowing Capacity to Prevent Suffocation in the Elderly by Using Flexible Endoscopic Examination of Swallowing (FEES)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive models for dysphagia in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Unlocking the Functional Properties of Plant Proteins in Designing Food Formulations for Senior Adults.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDysphagia is a common problem in older adults that can lead to nutritional deficiencies. Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are products used for oral nutrition support as an alternative nutritional therapy, specifically manufactured for the older individuals at risk of dysphagia. This study aimed to develop four high protein (23-34% energy ratio) and low carbohydrate (25-38% energy ratio) smoothie formulas (white sesame (WS) vs. white sesame and low carbohydrate (WSLC) vs. black sesame and low carbohydrate (BSLC) vs. chicken shitake (CS); 1 kcal/ml) for the older people with dysphagia and to assess their effect on swallowing capacity compared to widely used commercial formula (Ensure
methodsA cross-sectional study involved 63 participants aged 65 years or over. Subjects were divided into asymptomatic (n = 32, aged 72.9 ± 5.66 year) or symptomatic swallowing difficulty (n = 31, aged 75.0 ± 6.48 year) groups based on swallowing screening questionnaires. Swallowing capacity was assessed using Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES), performed by experienced physicians, for three drinks (WS, CS vs. Ensure
resultsSpare retention of a food bolus in each formula had been identified in the asymptomatic (47-66%) and symptomatic (61-71%) groups. WS had fewer premature spills than Ensure
conclusionsThe findings suggest that smoothie drinks, particularly WS (51-350 centipoise), may offer a viable alternative to commercial formula (1-50 centipoise) for older adults with dysphagia, potentially reducing premature spillage. The findings provide useful preliminary insights into the potential of these formulas to support safer swallowing. Further research, including longer-term studies, would help to more fully explore their nutritional benefits, safety, and applicability across broader populations.
trial registrationClinical Trial ID NCT04901182, https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04901182 (25/05/2021).
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.