SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Pharyngeal residue in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia.

Codas · 2019-10-10

DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20192018160PMID: 31618343

Check source for accessComparative Study; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeTo compare pharyngeal residues of different consistencies among groups of individuals with neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, a fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation was performed in 30 swallowing exams of individuals diagnosed with neurological disease and oropharyngeal dysphagia, regardless of the time or stage of the disease. The individuals were divided into three groups according to etiology: group I, 10 post-stroke, 8 male and 2 female, aged 51 to 80 years (average age: 67 years); group II, 10 individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 5 male and 5 female, aged 39 to 78 years (average age: 57 years); group III, 10 examinations of individuals with Parkinson's disease, 5 male and 5 female aged 65-88 years (average age: 74 years). The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale was applied by two independent raters in a blind manner for the analysis of pharyngeal residues in valleculae and pyriform sinuses based on the first swallowing of 5 mL of pureed and thickened liquid.ResultsNo statistically significant difference was observed among groups in the degree of pharyngeal residues of puree food or thickened liquid in the valleculae (p = 0.25/p = 0.18) or the pyriform sinuses (p = 1.41/0.49).ConclusionThe pharyngeal residue levels of pureed and thickened liquid were similar for the groups studied, with less severe levels being more frequent.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.