ReviewDysphagia2026
Assessment Tools for Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Dysphagia: A Network Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
Review in Dysphagia, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy for assessment tools as compared to reference standard in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Dysphagia (ICUAD) using network meta-analysis. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted from database inception before May 2025 to identify studies on ICUAD assessment tools. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. All analyses were implemented in R version 4.3.2. True positives (TP), False positives (FP), True negatives (TN), False negatives (FN), Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive value (PPV), and Negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and used to rank the index tests. Nineteen studies involving 1,167 patients and 11 tools were analyzed. The gold standards, Video Fluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) and Flexible Endoscopic Examination of Swallowing (FEES), showed the highest accuracy. Among bedside tools, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) (32.55%) and Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) (42.26%) achieved the best balance of sensitivity and specificity, followed by the modified Volume-Viscosity Swallow Test (mV-VST) (30.07%). GUSS and SSA are practical and reliable bedside tools for ICUAD screening, but cannot replace VFSS or FEES. Further large-scale high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm their diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41995801What 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.