SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Relationship between oral status, swallowing function, and nutritional risk in older people with and without Parkinson's disease.

Codas · 2024-08-05

DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20242023311ptPMID: 39109756

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

PurposeTo compare oral status, swallowing function (through instrumental and SLH assessment), and nutritional risk between dysphagic individuals with and without Parkinson's disease.MethodThis is a cross-sectional retrospective study based on data collected from medical records. It included 54 dysphagic older adults, divided into two groups according to the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. The study collected data on the speech-language-hearing assessment of postural control, tongue mobility and strength, maximum phonation time (MPT), and cough efficiency. Oral status was assessed using the number of teeth and the Eichner Index. The level of oral intake and pharyngeal signs of dysphagia were analyzed with four food consistencies, according to the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative classification, using fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, for comparison between groups. The severity of pharyngeal residues was analyzed and classified with the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale, and the nutritional risk was screened with the Malnutrition Screening Tool.ResultsThe group of older adults with Parkinson's disease was significantly different from the other group in that they had fewer teeth, unstable postural control, reduced tongue strength, reduced MPT, weak spontaneous coughing, pharyngeal signs, less oral intake, and nutritional risk.ConclusionDysphagic older people with Parkinson's disease had different oral status, swallowing function, and nutritional risk from those without the diagnosis.

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.