ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2020
A Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Gugging Swallowing Screen in Predicting Stroke-Associated Pneumonia.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Integrated analysis of the prevalence and influencing factors of poststroke dysphagia.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of acupuncture for stroke-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The Analysis of Risk Factors of Stroke-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with Acute Stroke Based on Lasso Regression and the Construction of a Nomogram Prediction Model.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- The impact of post-stroke pneumonia on survival and functional outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- From Stroke to Infection: The Emerging Role of Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio in Predicting Stroke-Associated Pneumonia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Are Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Screening Tests Effective in Preventing Pneumonia?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been many scales to predict pneumonia in stroke patients, but they are so complex, making it difficult to apply in practice. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the role of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) in predicting stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). These scales are routinely used in stroke patients. Therefore, their application in predicting SAP risk will be of high value in clinical practice. There has been no previous study evaluating the effectiveness of SAP risk prediction for each of these scales.
aimThis study aimed to compare the value of NIHSS and GUSS in SAP prediction and their convenience in clinical practice.
methodsIt was a cohort study. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the scales. Area under the curves (AUC) were calculated, and we compared them.
resultsNIHSS had a medium value of predictor of SAP with AUC 0.764 (95% CI 0.735-0.792), 65.4% Se, 76.5% Sp. GUSS had good value in predicting SAP with AUC 0.858 (95% CI 0.833-0.880), 80.5% Se, 80.1% Sp. Pairwise comparison of ROCs curves demonstrated that the difference between two AUCs was significant (p < 0.01). Performing GUSS required 24.5 ± 6.7 minutes, 2.5 times longer than NIHSS (9.9 ± 2.0 minutes).
conclusionGUSS had a better predictive value of SAP than NIHSS. But NIHSS was more convenient in clinical practice because of its simple instrument and quick performance.
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.