NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
PurposeTo compare the POS time in individuals diagnosed with PD in the conditions of isolated deglutition (ID) and dual-task deglutition (DD) for different consistencies and volumes.MethodsA total of 576 swallows edited from fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) of 16 individuals, both sexes, at different PD stages based on the Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) modified scale, aged 64 to 85 years (mean ± standard deviation: 72.4 ± 6). They underwent FEES with isolated deglutition (ID) and dual-task deglutition (DD) to analyze the POS time in swallowing. An otorhinolaryngologist performed the FEES, offering standardized consistencies at levels 0 - thin; 2 - mildly thick; and 4 - extremely thick, based on the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI). All food consistencies were dyed with blue artificial food coloring and offered 5 mL and 10 mL in disposable spoons. After adequate training, the quantitative temporal POS analysis for both deglutition conditions was performed using specific software. Data was analyzed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) with a significance level of 0.05 (5%). The Mann-Whitney test compared the ID and DD POS time.ResultsThe POS time was statistically significantly different for 5 mL of consistency level 4 (ID = 912 ms and DD = 2.044 ms) (p-value = 0.007).ConclusionThe results indicated that there was significant difference in the POS time between ID and DD only at 5 mL of consistency level 4 for individuals with PD at performing the cognitive-motor dual-task proposed.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.