ReviewCureus2026
Top-Cited Articles on Dysphagia and Cognitive Impairment: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis of Publications Retrieved Through October 2025.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deglutition disorders and cognitive impairment co-occur frequently in older adults and in patients with neurodegenerative or cerebrovascular disease, yet the intellectual structure and collaborative patterns at this clinical interface have not been mapped. We performed a bibliometric analysis, with scoping-review-style charting, of publications indexed in the Scopus database through the search date of 10 October 2025; we retrieved 1,190 records and retained the 100 most-cited articles for in-depth analysis. Because the most recent publications (2023-2025) have not yet accrued sufficient citations, the resulting top-100 corpus spans 2009-2022. Articles were stratified into three citation tiers: Hyperclassics (≥500 citations, n = 11), Top-Class (250-499 citations, n = 20), and Classics (100-249 citations, n = 69). Performance analysis and science mapping were conducted in R version 4.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) using the bibliometrix and biblioshiny packages (open-source; https://www.bibliometrix.org/). Continuous variables were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests; categorical variables with the chi-squared test and Cramér's V; and correlations among journal indicators with Spearman's rho and 95% confidence intervals derived via Fisher's z-transformation. The corpus accumulated 30,872 total citations (range 112-4,312). Stroke was the leading venue (6 articles; 7,909 citations; 25.6% of the corpus), and the United States contributed 32 articles representing 47% of all citations, followed by the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Germany. Hyperclassics significantly out-cited Classics in both total citations and citations per year (both p<0.0001) but not in author count or active years. Inter-metric correlations among Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) were uniformly strong (ρ>+0.84; all p<0.001), whereas correlations between these journal-level indicators and article-level citations were weak (ρ +0.22 to +0.29; all p<0.05). Keyword co-occurrence resolved three thematic clusters-stroke, dementia, and dysphagia (clinical burden and nutrition); Parkinson's disease and movement disorders; and neurological symptoms, cognition, and diagnostic imaging-while a complementary thematic-evolution analysis traced eight finer research streams. The field is dominated by stroke-related research and Anglo-American academic medicine, with a small set of influential guidelines driving disproportionate citation weight. Within this most-cited corpus, articles centred explicitly on the dysphagia-cognition interface were comparatively few (14% of the corpus), whereas disease-context and guideline records predominated; sensitivity analyses excluding peripheral records preserved the thematic and geographic structure. Estimating under-representation relative to clinical burden would require a field-normalised denominator and is proposed as future work. Future work should prioritize mechanistic neuroimaging in cognitively impaired patients, validated screening instruments adapted for dementia and parkinsonism, and comparative-effectiveness trials of dysphagia interventions across diagnostic categories.
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.