Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of the Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital Eating and Swallowing Manual for Dysphagia Triage in Patients at Admission: A Retrospective, Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

M. Ikebuchi, Tamotsu Nakatsuchi, T. Yamauchi, Yoichi Ohta, Y. Minoda, H. Terai, Hirokazu Sakamoto, M. Kawashima et al.

Cureus, 2025

12,395 participants

Abstract

Background Aspiration pneumonia is a potentially fatal condition that is more commonly seen in older people and has a high mortality rate. As the world population is aging, aspiration pneumonia may likely become more common worldwide, including Japan and the United States. Although aspiration pneumonia is regarded as a preventable condition, its prevention is attracting a great deal of attention, with many published studies reporting screening tests. We developed the Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital Eating and Swallowing (OMUES) manual for dysphagia triage in all hospitalized patients to prevent aspiration pneumonia. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of the OMUES manual for dysphagia triage in hospitalized patients by assessing changes in the incidence of aspiration pneumonia after introducing the OMUES manual. Materials and method The OMUES manual is designed for use by nurses without didactic training. Inpatients who meet the criteria for using the OMUES manual undergo a swallowing function assessment in three stages: the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) (stage 1), the Repetitive Saliva Swallowing Test (RSST) (stage 2), and the eating scene observation (stage 3). The study participants included 12,395 patients (6,000 males and 6,395 females) who were admitted between September 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, excluding minors, patients with aspiration pneumonia on admission, and patients on emergency hospitalization, whose data were retrospectively…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 12,395 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free