SLPCohortCoDAS2025

Relation between risk of dysphagia and oral intake level in cancer patients.

Alexia Diovana Fernandes da Rocha, Monalise Costa Batista Berbert, Vera Beatris Martins

PMID 39936813

WHAT IT FOUND

Hospitalized cancer patients who reported more swallowing trouble on a self-assessment score also had lower levels of oral intake.

The tool flagged risk in 30% of patients, and older adults were more likely to be at risk than younger ones.

Key findings

01A higher self-reported risk of dysphagia (EAT-10 score) was significantly associated with a lower level of oral intake (FOIS score).

0230% of the hospitalized oncology patients were classified as at risk for dysphagia based on the EAT-10 screening tool.

03Older patients (≥ 60 years) had significantly higher EAT-10 scores and were at higher risk for dysphagia compared to adults.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used a convenience sample from a single hospital, which limits generalizability. The sample size was small (60 patients). Objective swallowing assessments (like videofluoroscopy) were not performed due to routine constraints, so the FOIS scores relied on clinical evaluation and medical records. The sample included few patients with head and neck cancer, which is the group most commonly affected by dysphagia, potentially skewing the overall risk prevalence lower than expected in an oncology unit.

Declared interests

The authors declared no financial support or conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume the EAT-10 can diagnose the severity of dysphagia or replace a clinical swallowing evaluation. The study showed a correlation with the *level* of oral intake (FOIS), not with the physiological *mechanics* of swallowing (which were not objectively tested), and the sample had low prevalence of head and neck cancer.

Read it on PubMed →