ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of the effectiveness of a multimodal aspiration prevention system in stroke rehabilitation nursing.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of the Multimodal Aspiration Prevention System (MAPS) in reducing aspiration incidence, preventing pneumonia, and improving swallowing function in stroke rehabilitation patients.
methodsA before-after controlled study was conducted involving 855 stroke rehabilitation patients (408 in the MAPS intervention group, 447 in the historical control group). The intervention group received MAPS, including a three-tier risk warning system, standardized intervention procedures, and multidisciplinary collaboration, while the control group received conventional care. Primary outcomes included overt aspiration incidence, with secondary outcomes assessing stroke-associated pneumonia rates, swallowing function improvement, psychological status, and patient satisfaction.
resultsThe MAPS group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of overt aspiration compared to control group (p < 0.05), with complete elimination of aspiration events achieved by the second month of implementation. Secondary outcomes revealed clinically meaningful improvements following MAPS adoption: stroke-associated pneumonia rates decreased substantially (p < 0.05), psychological assessments indicated significant alleviation of anxiety and depression symptoms (p < 0.05), and patient satisfaction scores reached 99.2%. Although swallowing function showed numerical improvement in the MAPS group, the difference did not reach statistical significance when compared to the control group (p > 0.05).
conclusionMAPS effectively reduces aspiration and pneumonia risks while enhancing psychological well-being and patient satisfaction in stroke rehabilitation. Its closed-loop management model demonstrates clinical applicability. Further multicenter studies are warranted to validate long-term benefits.
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.