Bibliometric and Thematic Review of Research Studies Reporting Swallowing Data across Multiple Consistencies (2012-2024).

The review included only English-language, peer-reviewed studies with at least 10 participants and comparable swallowing data across at least two consistencies. It excluded many study types, including qualitative work, quality-of-life studies, case reports, protocols, guidelines, narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and animal studies. Participant overlap across articles could not be determined, so the 30,957 participant count likely overestimates the number of unique participants. Most included studies were cross-sectional, and randomized control trials were only 8%, so the review does not show that any treatment or texture change improves swallowing. Important reporting items were often missing, especially how dysphagia was defined and confirmed, participant demographics, medication use, and disease severity or duration. The FRONTIERS appraisal tool was in beta format, and not all of its domains or questions apply to every article. The literature was dominated by male and white or Caucasian participants, and authors from the United States, Japan, and Brazil, with underrepresentation of Latin America and Africa.

No funding source is reported. Catriona M. Steele discloses being first author of the previous systematic review, serving on the IDDSI board of directors from 2012 to 2023, and serving on the Dysphagia journal editorial board.

Do not read this as evidence that any texture modification improves swallowing. It is a review of how studies report swallowing across consistencies, and most included studies were cross-sectional.