SynthesisDysphagia2024
Dysphagia Rehabilitation in Dysphagic Patients with Acute or Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The intensive care medicine research agenda for the management of ICU acquired weakness: a multinational, interprofessional perspective.Intensive care medicine · 2025Pooled it
- How enteral nutrition modes influence nasopharyngeal carcinoma survivors with late dysphagia after radiotherapy: a randomized controlled study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Trial
- Article
- Current concepts on feeding the critically ill patient: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Impact of Frailty on the Duration and Type of Speech-Language-Hearing Therapy for Patients With COVID-19.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysphagia or swallowing dysfunction is common in patients with acute or critical illness, and diverse methods of dysphagia rehabilitation are provided worldwide. We aimed to examine the efficacy of rehabilitation to treat dysphagia in patients with acute or critical illness. We searched PubMed, ICHUSHI, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to November 22, 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials. We focused on dysphagic patients with acute or critical illness who were not orotracheally intubated. Our target intervention included conventional rehabilitation and nerve stimulation/neuromodulation techniques as dysphagia rehabilitation. Comparators were conventional or standard care or no dysphagia interventions. Primary outcomes included mortality, incidence of pneumonia during the study period, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores within 90 days of hospital discharge. We pooled the data using a random-effects model, and classified the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Nineteen randomized controlled trials involving 1,096 participants were included. Dysphagia rehabilitation was associated with a reduced incidence of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81; moderate certainty), but not with reduced mortality (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.61-1.39; very low certainty) or improved HRQoL scores (mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -20.34 to 19.94; very low certainty). Based on the available moderate- or very low- quality evidence, while dysphagia rehabilitation had no impact on mortality or HRQoL, they might reduce the incidence of pneumonia in dysphagic patients with acute or critical illness.
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.