Strategies of Screening and Treating Post-Extubation Dysphagia: An Overview of the Situation in Greek-Cypriot ICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-extubation dysphagia (PED) can lead to serious health problems in critically ill patients. Contrasting its high incidence rate of 12.4% reported in a recent observational study, many ICUs lack routine bedside screening, likely due to limited awareness. This study aimed to establish baseline data on the current approaches and the status of perceived best practices in PED screening and treatment, as well as to assess awareness of PED. A nationwide cross-sectional, online survey was conducted in all fourteen adult ICUs in the Republic of Cyprus in June 2018, with a 100% response rate. Over 85% of ICUs lacked a standard screening protocol for PED. The most commonly reported assessment methods were cough reflex testing and the water swallow test. Treatment approaches included muscle strengthening exercises without swallowing and swallowing exercises. Only 28.6% of ICUs acknowledged PED as a common issue. The study identified significant gaps in awareness and knowledge regarding PED screening and treatment in Greek-Cypriot ICUs. Urgent implementation of comprehensive dysphagia education programs within the units is necessary, and interdisciplinary collaboration among nurses, intensivists, and speech and language therapists is crucial to improve the quality of care provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".