Trial reportScientific reports2026
Pharyngeal electrical stimulation for postextubation dysphagia after stroke: a randomized trial on hospitalization costs from a health insurance perspective.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysphagia is a frequent and serious complication after stroke, associated with pneumonia, malnutrition, prolonged intensive care unit stay, and higher healthcare costs. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a novel therapy that may support recovery from postextubation dysphagia. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of PES in stroke patients from a health insurance perspective. We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial including 60 stroke patients with postextubation dysphagia, randomized to PES (n = 30) or sham stimulation (n = 30). Sham treatment involved identical device placement without stimulation. Acute hospital costs were estimated per patient using the 2025 German Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG) reimbursement system. Mean costs were compared between groups with a one-sided t-test, and distributions were explored with boxplots. Mean DRG costs per patient were €22,392.89 (SD = €14,980.84) in the sham group and €18,127.20 (SD = €7,828.65) in the PES group. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.087). However, three outliers with costs >€50,593 occurred in the sham group, compared with none in the PES group (maximum €35,257.49). Although the difference in mean hospitalization costs between groups was not statistically significant, extreme high-cost outliers occurred only in the sham group in this pilot sample. This observation is exploratory and hypothesis-generating and requires confirmation in larger, adequately powered health-economic studies before firm conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness can be drawn.
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.