A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of standardized bariums with varying rheological parameters on swallowing kinematics in males. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated different viscosities of liquid barium used in swallowing assessments to determine the need for thickening agents for safety.
  • 25 adult males participated, with 16 completing assessments using three barium viscosities: nectar, thin honey, and thick honey.
  • Results showed no significant differences in airway invasion or residue between thin and thick honey, but significantly more airway issues and residue occurred with nectar, indicating that thin honey is safer and preferred by patients.

Article Abstract

This study measured dose-response of a range of commercially available liquid barium materials designed for use in videofluoroscopic oropharyngeal swallowing assessments, particularly as they relate to the necessity of adding a thickening agent for swallow safety. A group of 25 adult males representing various medical diagnoses consented to participate, with 16 qualifying to complete a videofluoroscopic swallowing assessment with liquid barium materials of three viscosities (nectar: 300 cP, thin honey: 1,500 cP, thick honey: 3,000 cP). Outcome measures included airway invasion (Penetration-Aspiration score), postswallow residue, and patient preference. Penetration-Aspiration and residue scores did not significantly differ between thin honey and thick honey bariums. Significantly more severe airway invasion was observed with nectar boluses than with two levels of honey boluses (p < 0.001). Significantly more residue was observed in the oral cavity (p < 0.002) and valleculae (p < 0.001) with thin and thick honey bariums than with nectar barium. Thin honey was rated as "easy" or "average" to drink by 67% of subjects, compared with 54% for thick honey. This study supports the use of thin honey barium over thick honey barium during videofluoroscopic swallowing assessments because the two honey bariums were comparable in terms of airway protection and postswallow residue in the oropharynx and the thin honey was preferred by patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2011.09.0180DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

thin honey
20
thick honey
20
honey
12
honey bariums
12
liquid barium
8
barium materials
8
swallowing assessments
8
videofluoroscopic swallowing
8
airway invasion
8
postswallow residue
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!