Tongue pressure in sarcopenic and dynapenic elderly.
Ívina Thaiana de Almeida Menezes, Igor de Matos Pinheiro, Júlia Canto E Souza and 4 others
PMID 40243813WHAT IT FOUND
Tongue pressure did not show a clear difference between sarcopenic and dynapenic institutionalized elderly, but 17 of 29 had low tongue pressure, and low pressure was associated with weaker handgrip in sarcopenic women.
Key findings
01Among 29 institutionalized elderly, 23 were sarcopenic, 5 were dynapenic, and 17 had weak tongue strength.
02The overall positive association between tongue pressure and handgrip strength was not statistically significant.
03In the 70 to 79 age group and in the sarcopenic women group, tongue pressure and handgrip strength were positively correlated (p=0.03 and p=0.003).
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.
What it does not show
The study included only 29 people from one long-term care facility. Results may not apply to community-dwelling elderly or other settings. The dynapenic group had only 5 participants, and the men had only 6 participants. Group comparisons and gender findings are unstable. The sarcopenic group was older than the dynapenic group. This age difference may explain part of the tongue pressure findings. The design was cross-sectional. It cannot show whether sarcopenia caused low tongue pressure or whether low tongue pressure led to swallowing problems. The study did not measure swallowing function. It cannot show that low tongue pressure identified dysphagia. The main comparison was not significant. Positive correlations were found only in smaller subgroups, such as the 70 to 79 age group and sarcopenic women.
Declared interests
The paper states financial support from MEC-CAPES in 2021.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that sarcopenia causes low tongue pressure or that tongue pressure identifies dysphagia. The study had 29 participants, did not measure swallowing outcomes, and the main group comparison was not significant. Positive correlations appeared only in smaller subgroups.