Cited by 159Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

Pilot study of 12-month outcomes of nursing home patients with aspiration on videofluoroscopy

Croghan, John E., Burke, Elizabeth M., Caplan, Sharon, Denman, Susan·1994·Dysphagia

Abstract

The 12-month clinical outcomes of nursing home patients who underwent videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation was determined. A retrospective review of 40 patients in a teaching nursing home who had videofluoroscopic swallowing studies from 1987 through 1989 was performed. Clinical outcomes measured included feeding tube placement, rehospitalization within 1 year, prolonged nursing home stay (> 6 months), pneumonia, and pneumonia death. It was determined if outcomes were associated with the presence of aspiration on videofluoroscopy and subsequent feeding tube placement. In the 12-month follow-up period, 17 of 40 patients (43%) who underwent videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation developed pneumonia and 18 of 40 (45%) died. Twenty-two patients demonstrated aspiration on videofluoroscopy. Increased rehospitalization was the only outcome measure that was associated with the presence of aspiration on videofluoroscopy (p < or = 0.05). Of 22 patients with aspiration, 15 had feeding tubes placed. This group had a higher rate of pneumonia (p < or = 0.05) and pneumonia death (p < or = 0.05) compared with the 7 patients with aspiration who did not receive feeding tubes. Patients with nasogastric tubes had a higher death rate (7/9) than patients with gastrostomy tubes (2/8; p < or = 0.05), but similar rates of rehospitalization and pneumonia. Nursing home patients who underwent video-fluoroscopic swallowing evaluation had poor clinical outcomes at 12 months, regardless of their test results.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00341256

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Croghan, J. E., Burke, E. M., Caplan, S., & Denman, S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Dysphagia
Published
1994
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
141-146
ISSN
  • 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0460
OpenAlex
W1969590176
Cited by
159
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
14.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dysphagia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32ag000120-25)
  • National Institute on Aging (T32-AG-00120)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
aspiration, videofluoroscopic swallowing study, nursing home residents, feeding tube placement, nasogastric tube, gastrostomy tube, pneumonia, pneumonia mortality, hospital readmission, clinical outcomes
MeSH terms
Aged, Deglutition Disorders, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Fluoroscopy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Homes, Pilot Projects, Pneumonia, Aspiration, Retrospective Studies, Videotape Recording

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review