ArticleScientific reports2026
A pragmatic approach to identifying postextubation dysphagia in critically ill surgical patients using the water swallow test.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Risk factors for postextubation pneumonia using diagnosis procedure combination and claims data in Japan.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Postextubation dysphagia (PED) is a frequent complication in critically ill patients, associated with aspiration pneumonia, reintubation, and increased mortality. However, its reported incidence varies widely (3–62%) due to differences in patient populations and assessment methods. This study aimed to determine the incidence of postextubation dysphagia (PED) using the Water Swallow Test (WST) and to identify associated risk factors in surgical ICU patients. This prospective interventional study enrolled adult surgical ICU patients who were intubated for more than 12 h and subsequently extubated. The WST was performed 3–6 h after extubation. Patients who failed the WST underwent bedside Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) to confirm dysphagia. We collected and analyzed associated risk factors, including age, comorbidities, endotracheal tube size, duration and difficulty of intubation, history of reintubation, admission diagnosis, and laboratory parameters. A total of 123 patients were included. Ten patients failed the WST, but FEES confirmed PED in eight, yielding an incidence of 6.5%. The median age was 63.6 years in the non-dysphagia group and 73 years in the dysphagia group. Patients with PED had a significantly longer median duration of intubation (144 vs. 36 h, p < 0.05). History of reintubation was more frequent in patients with PED (37.5%) than in non-dysphagia patients (8.7%, p = 0.040). Univariate analysis identified several factors associated with PED. Specifically, significant risk factors included history of reintubation [OR 6.30 (95% CI 1.31–30.33), p = 0.022], increased days on vasopressor support [OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.18–1.99), p = 0.001], elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels [OR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01–1.06), p = 0.020], and prolonged intubation [OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.01–1.02), p = 0.001]. The Water Swallowing Test (WST) is a practical screening tool for Postextubation Dysphagia (PED) but may miss silent aspiration. Therefore, despite WST results, careful monitoring during oral intake is essential for high-risk patients to prevent pulmonary complications. Thai Clinical Trials Registry. Trial no. TCTR20211023003. Retrospectively registered on October 23, 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.