The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Formal Dysphagia Screening Protocols Prevent Pneumonia
Open accessAbstract
Background— Pneumonia is an important complication of ischemic stroke and increases mortality 3-fold. Five guidelines recommend a dysphagia screen before oral intake. What constitutes an adequate dysphagia screen and which patients should receive it remain unclear. Methods— Fifteen acute care institutions prospectively collected data on all admitted patients with acute ischemic stroke. Sites were required to collect data on demographics and 4 quality indicators. Optional data included stroke severity and complications. We measured adherence to a screen for dysphagia, the type of screen, and development of in-hospital pneumonia. Results— Between December 2001 and January 2003, 2532 cases were collected. In-hospital complications were recorded on 2329 (92%) of cases. Stroke severity was captured on 1361 (54%). Adherence to a dysphagia screen was 61%. Six sites had a formal dysphagia screen, and their adherence rate was 78% compared with 57% at sites with no formal screen. The pneumonia rate at sites with a formal dysphagia screen was 2.4% versus 5.4% ( P =0.0016) at sites with no formal screen. There was no difference in median stroke severity (5 versus 4; P =0.84) between the sites with and without a formal screen. A formal dysphagia screen prevented pneumonia even after adjusting for stroke severity. Conclusions— A formal dysphagia screen is associated with a higher adherence rate to dysphagia screens and a significantly decreased risk of pneumonia. A formal screening protocol should be offered to all stroke patients, regardless of stroke severity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kiefe, C. I., Allison, J. J., Williams, O. D., Person, S. D., Weaver, M. T., & Weissman, N. W. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.22.2871 · Cited by 503
Cited by
Winstein, C. J., Stein, J., Arena, R., Bates, B., Cherney, L. R., Cramer, S. C., Deruyter, F., Eng, J. J., Fisher, B., Harvey, R. L., et al. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000098 · Cited by 3,293
ESPEN guideline clinical nutrition in neurology
Burgos, R., Bretón, I., Cereda, E., Desport, J. C., Dziewas, R., Genton, L., Gomes, F., Jésus, P., Leischker, A., Muscaritoli, M., et al. (2018) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.003 · Cited by 571
Wirth, R., Dziewas, R., Beck, A. M., Clave, P., Heppner, H. J., Langmore, S., Leischker, A., Martino, R., Pluschinski, P., Rösler, A., et al. (2016) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s97481 · Cited by 548
Interventions for dysphagia and nutritional support in acute and subacute stroke
Geeganage, C., Beavan, J., Ellender, S., & Bath, P. M. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000323.pub2 · Cited by 282
Flowers, H. L., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Rochon, E., & Martino, R. (2013) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.04.001 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Hinchey, J. A., Shephard, T., Furie, K., Smith, D., Wang, D., & Tonn, S.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1972-1976
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2128968237
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Formal Dysphagia Screening Protocols Prevent Pneumonia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000177529.86868.8d
- The paper
- Hinchey, J. A., Shephard, T., Furie, K., Smith, D., Wang, D., & Tonn, S. (2005). Formal Dysphagia Screening Protocols Prevent Pneumonia. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000177529.86868.8d
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.