SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Advancing stroke patient care: a network meta-analysis of dysphagia screening efficacy and personalization.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Screening and Evaluation of Post-stroke Dysphagia: Insights from Neurology, Artificial Intelligence and Data Science-A Scoping Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Change in Swallowing Function and Substance P Levels Associated with Nicergoline in Neurological Disease: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Guided Oral-Intake and Swallowing Test (GOST): Validation of a Novel Bedside Composite Score for Dysphagia Against Instrumental Assessment.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- Post-stroke dysphagia across the care continuum: a full-cycle framework for rehabilitation, supportive care, and community follow-up.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Age-defying swallowing.Frontiers in aging · 2025Review
- Predicting Early Dysphagia in Acute Ischemic Stroke Using an Explainable Machine Learning Model.International journal of general medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The increasing incidence of stroke globally has led to dysphagia becoming one of the most common complications in stroke patients, with significant impacts on patient outcomes. Accurate early screening for dysphagia is crucial to avoid complications and improve patient quality of life. Methods: Included studies involved stroke-diagnosed patients assessed for dysphagia using bedside screening tools. Data was sourced from Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL, including publications up to 10 December 2023. The study employed both fixed-effect and random-effects models to analyze sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Negative Predictive Value (NPV), each with 95% confidence intervals. The random-effects model was particularly utilized due to observed heterogeneity in study data. Results: From 6,979 records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 3,314 participants from 10 countries. The analysis included six assessment tools: GUSS, MASA, V-VST, BSST, WST, and DNTA, compared against gold-standard methods VFSS and FEES. GUSS, MASA, and V-VST showed the highest reliability, with sensitivity and specificity rates of 92% and 85% for GUSS, 89% and 83% for MASA, respectively. Heterogeneity among studies was minimal, and publication bias was low, enhancing the credibility of the findings. Conclusion: Our network meta-analysis underscores the effectiveness of GUSS, MASA, and V-VST in dysphagia screening for stroke patients, with high sensitivity and specificity making them suitable for diverse clinical settings. BSST and WST, with lower diagnostic accuracy, require more selective use. Future research should integrate patient-specific outcomes and standardize methodologies to enhance dysphagia screening tools, ultimately improving patient care and reducing complications. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
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.