Alimentos na consistência líquida e deglutição: uma revisão crítica da literatura

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review was to analyze international scientific papers published on the physiology of swallowing fluids in the oral and pharyngeal phases. The employed methodology involved the formulation of a question, the location and selection of studies, and a critical assessment of the manuscripts according to the concepts of the Cochrane Handbook. We identified 185 articles, of which 141 were excluded for not being directly related to the theme. Twenty-nine studies were analyzed. The researchers were strongly focused on ways to identify dysphagia and not on the features offered by swallowing various consistencies. Regarding the methodology employed in the reviewed articles, it was observed that there were no control groups in most studies. The studied groups were heterogeneous, especially when considering individuals with neurological disorders. In addition, the subjects were not paired by age. Thus, the findings of this review indicate that clinicians face great difficulty in applying these scientific findings in their daily practices, which, in turn, limits the use of evidence-based practice.

Implementação Do Teste Da Linguinha Em Uma Maternidade Pública De Sumário Pernambuco

“…Com o objetivo de investigar as características do acelerômetro duplo-eixo na deglutição de diferentes alimentos, um grupo de autores avaliou 17 adultos saudáveis. MARQUES et al, 2008;PIRES et al, 2012).…”

Campanha De Conscientização Para Prevenção Do Risco De Broncoaspiração: Relato De Experiência

“…Com o objetivo de investigar as características do acelerômetro duplo-eixo na deglutição de diferentes alimentos, um grupo de autores avaliou 17 adultos saudáveis. MARQUES et al, 2008;PIRES et al, 2012).…”

Campanha De Prevenção Do Câncer De Cabeça E Pescoço No Cenário De Pandemia Da Covid-19

“…Com o objetivo de investigar as características do acelerômetro duplo-eixo na deglutição de diferentes alimentos, um grupo de autores avaliou 17 adultos saudáveis. MARQUES et al, 2008;PIRES et al, 2012).…”