Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236482›Full record

ReviewEuropean stroke journal2018

Oral care after stroke: Where are we now?

Mary Lyons, Craig Smith, Elizabeth Boaden, Marian C Brady, Paul Brocklehurst, Hazel Dickinson, Shaheen Hamdy, Susan Higham, Peter Langhorne, Catherine Lightbody and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European stroke journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. CHOSEN: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

15 authors.

Mary LyonsFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7532-2301
Craig SmithDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth BoadenFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Marian C BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Paul BrocklehurstNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor Institute of Health and Medical Research and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Hazel DickinsonFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Shaheen HamdyDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, UK.
Susan HighamInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, UK.
Peter LanghorneInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK.
Catherine LightbodyFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Giles McCrackenCentre for Oral Health Research, School of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.
Antonieta Medina-LaraHealth Economics Group, Medical School, University of Exeter, UK.
Lise SprosonNational Institute for Health Research Devices for Dignity Healthcare Technology Cooperative, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Angus WallsEdinburgh Dental Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Dame Caroline WatkinsFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere appears to be an association between poor oral hygiene and increased risk of aspiration pneumonia - a leading cause of mortality post-stroke. We aim to synthesise what is known about oral care after stroke, identify knowledge gaps and outline priorities for research that will provide evidence to inform best practice.

methodsA narrative review from a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing on evidence from systematic reviews, literature, expert and lay opinion to scrutinise current practice in oral care after a stroke and seek consensus on research priorities. DISCUSSION: Oral health after a stroke is important from a social as well as physical health perspective, yet tends to be neglected. Multidisciplinary research is needed to improve understanding of the complexities associated with delivering good oral care for stroke patients. Also to provide the evidence for practice that will improve wellbeing and may reduce risk of aspiration pneumonia and other serious sequelae.

conclusionAlthough there is evidence of an association, there is only weak evidence about whether improving oral care reduces risk of pneumonia or mortality after a stroke. Clinically relevant, feasible, cost-effective, evidence-based oral care interventions to improve patient outcomes in stroke care are urgently needed.

Indexed as

dentalmouthoral cavityoral healthoral hygienepneumoniaquality of lifeStroketooth-brushing

Identifiers

PMID31236482
PMCPMC6571511

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.