SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Characteristics, predictors, and management of post-extubation dysphagia in critically Ill children: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-extubation dysphagia (PED) is a common complication in critically ill children, associated with aspiration, malnutrition, and prolonged hospitalization. Standardized pediatric-specific assessment and management pathways are lacking, and published studies show substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria, assessment timing, and intervention strategies. Objective: This scoping review maps available evidence on pediatric PED, addressing: (1) incidence and clinical characteristics; (2) categories and effect sizes of independent predictors; and (3) the current state of prediction tools, bedside screening instruments, and management strategies. Methods: Nine databases were searched systematically-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM-with a search cutoff of 12 March 2026. Fifteen studies were included, encompassing cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and scale-development studies. Data were synthesized narratively following the JBI scoping review methodological framework. Results: Included studies were published between 2018 and 2026; 73.3% (11/15) appeared after 2022, originating primarily from mainland China ( Conclusion: Pediatric PED incidence is high and core risk factors have been repeatedly reported across multiple multivariable models, but the field shows substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic definitions, assessment tools, and intervention protocols. The absence of instrumental validation for bedside assessment tools is the central limitation. Key gaps include the absence of gold-standard diagnostic accuracy studies, externally validated prediction models, and standardized intervention pathways. Future research should prioritize multicenter prospective studies to unify diagnostic criteria, develop age-appropriate bedside screening tools, and establish a nurse-led multidisciplinary management framework. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (OSF), identifier doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XSJ9B.
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.