SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparative efficacy of different interventions for post-stroke cricopharyngeal achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sustained efficacy of acupuncture in post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to employ network meta-analysis to systematically compare and evaluate the efficacy of various interventions for post-stroke cricopharyngeal achalasia. Methods: We searched 10 databases and trial registries from inception to December 3, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on cricopharyngeal achalasia after stroke. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcome indicators included effective rate, videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) score, Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) score, and Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) score. Results: A total of 36 articles covering 13 interventions were included. Network meta-analysis revealed: ① Regarding the evaluation of effective rate, the top three interventions based on SUCRA values were: balloon dilation combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (91.8%) > balloon dilation combined with electromyographic biofeedback (EMGBF) (82.8%) > balloon dilation combined with acupuncture (79.4%); ② For the VFSS assessment, the highest SUCRA rankings were: balloon dilation combined with acupuncture (92.0%) > balloon dilation combined with tongue pressure resistance feedback (TPRF) (79.6%) > balloon dilation combined with botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) (78.4%); ③ Concerning the FOIS evaluation, the top three SUCRA values were: balloon dilation combined with BTX-A (87.4%) > balloon dilation combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (83.0%) > balloon dilation combined with acupuncture (76.8%); ④ In the SSA evaluation, the leading interventions by SUCRA were: balloon dilation combined with acupuncture (80.0%) > balloon dilation combined with BTX-A (69.5%) > balloon dilation combined with rTMS (68.5%). Conclusion: Intervention efficacy varied across outcome measures. Balloon dilation combined with acupuncture may be the optimal intervention for improving VFSS scores and reducing SSA scores. Balloon dilation combined with BTX-A may be optimal for improving FOIS scores, and balloon dilation combined with rTMS may be optimal for increasing the effective rate. However, given the small sample sizes of included studies, inadequate allocation concealment and blinding, and potential publication bias for some outcomes, the present findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality studies are warranted to validate these results. Systematic review registration: This systematic review has been prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Identifier CRD420251186725.
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.