SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Prediction models for aspiration risk in stroke patients: a systematic review.
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.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a leading cause of disability and death, with post-stroke dysphagia significantly increasing aspiration risk, leading to complications, such as aspiration pneumonia and higher mortality. Various prediction models for aspiration exist, but their clinical utility is limited by methodological heterogeneity. Aim: This review aimed to evaluate the performance and applicability of these models for stroke patients, informing future model optimization and clinical use. Study design: A comprehensive search was conducted across nine electronic databases until 20 January 2025. Studies on the development or validation of aspiration risk prediction models in adult stroke patients were included. Data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist, and bias risk and applicability were assessed using the PROBAST tool. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251007112). Results: Eighteen model development studies were included. Most demonstrated good discrimination (AUC/C-index: 0.756-0.955), with 16 showing good applicability. However, all studies had a high risk of bias, mainly due to retrospective designs, small sample sizes (events per variable < 20), inadequate missing data handling, univariate variable selection, and limited external validation. Key predictors included age, NIHSS score, Kubota Water Swallowing Test, history of aspiration, and Glasgow Coma Scale score. Conclusion: Aspiration risk prediction models for stroke patients show promising predictive performance but are limited by methodological bias and heterogeneity. Future research should prioritize rigorous reporting and multi-center, large-sample external validation to improve model robustness and clinical applicability. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251007112, URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251007112.
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.