ArticleNeurosurgical review2020
Dysphagia in non-traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage: a scoping review.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently limited information regarding dysphagia following non-traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), which impacts upon speech-language pathologists' (SLP) decisions when providing clinical care for this patient cohort. This scoping review aims to summarise the available evidence on the topic and identify gaps in the literature. The scoping review framework as described by Arskey and O'Malley (Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19-32, 2005) was used. Searches were undertaken in six databases. Inclusion criteria included that participants were adults (18+ years), with a primary diagnosis of non-traumatic SAH, and dysphagia occurred as a result of non-traumatic SAH. Data was extracted by the primary author independently and cross-checked by the second author. Data extracted included year of publication, study location, population, aims of the study, study design, method used to identify dysphagia, who completed the assessment, dysphagia incidence, dysphagia type and severity, risk factors, characteristics, and intervention details. Ten studies were included. Dysphagia was diagnosed based on staff reports, screening, clinical swallowing examination, and/or instrumental swallowing assessment with considerable variability identified across studies with regard to incidence (range 0.9-100%). Studies were highly heterogeneous with regard to dysphagia assessment practice, risk factors, characteristics, provision of intervention, and outcomes. The current evidence regarding dysphagia following non-traumatic SAH is insufficient to provide best practice guidelines for assessment and management recommendations. Emerging evidence will inform healthcare professionals managing dysphagia in individuals following non-traumatic SAH. Future research with more rigorous study designs will promote evidence-based clinical care standards for this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.