Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25917018›Full record

SynthesisDysphagia2015

Effectiveness of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Dysphagia Subsequent to Stroke: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

Seung Nam Yang, Sung-Bom Pyun, Hyun Jung Kim, Hyeong Sik Ahn, Byung Joo Rhyu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
18.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seung Nam YangDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-705, South Korea.
Sung-Bom Pyun
Hyun Jung Kim
Hyeong Sik Ahn
Byung Joo Rhyu
Korea University · KRSahmyook Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in patients with dysphagia subsequent to stroke. A systematic search of the literature published by Medline (January 1, 1976 through June 21, 2013), EMBASE (January 1, 1985 through June 21, 2013), and the Cochrane Library (January 1, 1987 through June 21, 2013) was conducted for all relevant articles related to NIBS, dysphagia, and cerebrovascular disorders (CVD). Two reviewers (S.N.Y and S.B.P) independently evaluated the eligibility of retrieved data according to the selection criteria and assessed methodological quality of the studies using the 'assessing risk of bias' table recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.0.2). Six randomized controlled trials (59 intervention groups and 55 placebo groups) were identified as addressing the use of NIBS for dysphagia after CVD and were included in the meta-analysis. The function scale score improvement of dysphagia in patients treated with NIBS was statistically significant compared with that of patients who underwent sham stimulation (standardized mean difference = 1.08, 95 % confidence intervals = 0.29-1.88, p = 0.008; I (2) = 72 %). A subgroup analysis based on the type of intervention (three repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies and three transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies) revealed a statistically significant beneficial effect of NIBS compared with sham stimulation in the rTMS group, but not in the tDCS group. When the results were examined based on intervention site (ipsilesional vs. contralesional site stimulation), no statistically significant difference was noted between two groups. No complications of NIBS were reported in this analysis.

Indexed as

BrainDeglutition DisordersHumansRisk FactorsStrokeTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID25917018
OpenAlexW2036841411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.