SynthesisJournal of oral rehabilitation2025
Effects of Non-Pharmacological Interventions on the Swallowing Function of Patients With Post-Stroke Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of resistance exercise on patients with post-stroke dysphagia based on ACSM recommendations: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy of acupuncture for post-stroke dysphagia: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Neurophysiological Mechanisms of 10 Hz Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Post-Stroke Dysphagia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Revista de neurologia · 2026Trial
- Intermittent oroesophageal vs. nasogastric tube feeding in frail elderly with dysphagia: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-stroke dysphagia can lead to serious complications and appropriate rehabilitation can significantly improve swallowing function. However, the best rehabilitation method for post-stroke dysphagia patients is not clear at the present stage, so it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis and systematic review of different interventions for dysphagia.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and ranking of different interventions for improving swallowing function, and feeding and daily function in patients with post-stroke dysphagia.
methodsSeven databases were searched from the date of inception to September 1, 2022. Two investigators independently conducted literature searches, selected randomized controlled trials on dysphagia interventions, and assessed study quality. Network meta-analysis was conducted by using Stata software.
resultsA total of 33 studies involving 1,341 patients were included. According to the ranking probabilities, acupuncture was rated as the most effective of all interventions to enhance patients' swallowing function (surface under cumulative ranking curve values [SUCRCV]: 99.0%, standardized mean difference [SMD]: -2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.38 to -1.43), followed by the chin tuck against resistance exercise (CTAR, SUCRA: 89.9%, SMD: -1.83, 95% CI: -2.69 to -0.97). Among all the interventions, acupuncture was the most effective for feeding and daily function (SUCRCV: 88.4%, SMD: -1.62, 95% CI: -2.94 to -0.30).
conclusionsThe results showed that acupuncture was the most effective in the rehabilitation of patients with post-stroke dysphagia, followed by CTAR. Considering that CTAR is a low-cost and highly feasible intervention, we suggest that CTAR should be selected as a rehabilitation measure for patients with post-stroke dysphagia to improve their swallowing function.
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.