SynthesisFrontiers in stroke2025
Nutritional care in rehabilitation and acute care of stroke patients: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.
Synthesis in Frontiers in stroke, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Stroke Dysphagia: Moving Toward Evidence-Based, Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Analysis of nutritional status and functional recovery outcomes in stroke patients under nursing care.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malnutrition and nutritional care are significant challenges for healthcare professionals treating stroke patients, in both acute care and during rehabilitation. This study aimed to assess and synthesize the nutritional care recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for managing malnutrition risk in stroke patients, evaluate the supporting evidence, identify research gaps, and assess the quality of the CPGs. Methods: Three databases, along with National Medical Association websites and nutrition journals, were searched for CPGs published between 2019 and 2024 that provided recommendations on nutritional care for stroke patients. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction, and three reviewers independently assessed CPG quality and clinical applicability (using AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools). Results: 13 CPGs were included in this review. These were of varying quality, with overall moderate AGREE II total scores [mean (SD), 55.2% (21.8%)]. Only two CPGs had an overall quality score above 70% based on AGREE-REX total scores, while five were categorized as poor quality (scores < 40%). Most guidelines strongly recommended early dysphagia screening upon hospital admission, including the provision of texture-modified foods for patients with dysphagia. However, recommendations on malnutrition, nutritional support, and supplementation were often either absent or inconsistent across guidelines and recommendations were mostly based on moderate to weak evidence. Conclusion: This study highlights the critical need for more rigorous research, standardized approaches, and patient-centered studies to improve and optimize nutritional care practices for stroke patients. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024498430, PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42024498430.
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.