SynthesisBrain and behavior2023
Demographic and clinical factors associated with recovery of poststroke dysphagia: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Demographic and clinical factors associated with recovery of poststroke dysphagia: A meta-analysis.Brain and behavior · 2023Pooled it
- Prediction models for aspiration risk in stroke patients: a systematic review.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index Predicts Poor Swallowing Recovery in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Dynamic suprahyoid muscle ultrasound in acute stroke: a prospective observational study for developing a dysphagia severity score.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Observational
- Article
- Clinical Features and Voxel-Based-Symptom-Lesion Mapping of Silent Aspiration in Acute Infratentorial Stroke.Dysphagia · 2024Observational
- A Machine-Learning Model Based on Clinical Features for the Prediction of Severe Dysphagia After Ischemic Stroke.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoststroke dysphagia (PSD) recovery depends on various factors. We aimed to provide evidence concerning predictive variables for the recovery of PSD.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP database of Chinese periodicals, Chinese biomedical literature service system (SinoMed), and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to September 21, 2022. According to the inclusion criteria, the literature searched in the database was screened. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed to identify the factors prognostic for PSD.
resultsTwenty-eight studies were eligible, and pooled analyses were allowed for 12 potential prognostic factors. We identified older age, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, lower activities of daily living (ADL) score, lower body mass index (BMI), severe dysphagia on admission, aspiration, brainstem stroke, severe cognitive impairment, and bilateral hemispheric stroke were negative factors for the recovery of PSD, while early intervention and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) = 0 before onset were protective factors for the recovery of PSD. There was no significant association between stroke type and prognosis of PSD.
conclusionPrognostic factors of PSD summarized in this meta-analysis could be useful for developing reasonable treatment plan to better promote recovery of swallowing function after stroke.
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.