ReviewGlobal health & medicine2026
Multidisciplinary interventions for the prevention of aspiration pneumonia in super-aged societies: A scoping review.
Review in Global health & medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aspiration pneumonia is associated with significant morbidity and is a leading cause of mortality among older adults, with a disproportionately high burden in super-aged societies such as Japan. Despite international guidelines recommending a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach, evidence supporting collaborative interventions remains fragmented. We conducted a scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, to map multidisciplinary interventions for aspiration pneumonia prevention. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched through December 2024 for studies involving three or more healthcare disciplines. Among the 309 identified studies, 10 met the inclusion criteria. All included studies targeted primary prevention in high-risk populations; none addressed recurrence prevention, despite 30-day recurrence rates reaching approximately 30%. MDTs consistently included physicians, nurses, and speech-language pathologists, whereas pharmacists (2/10) and dental professionals (2/10) were relatively underrepresented, despite robust evidence supporting interventions within these professional domains. Seven studies reported a significant reduction in the incidence of aspiration pneumonia; however, the only randomized controlled trial showed no effect on pneumonia. The current evidence base, predominantly comprising observational and quality improvement studies, should be interpreted as preliminary and heterogeneous in terms of study design and outcome measurement. Evidence gaps remain in secondary and tertiary prevention and optimal team composition. Future trials in patients with prior aspiration pneumonia should investigate whether incorporation of professionals from disciplines with established intervention effectiveness, such as pharmacists and dental professionals, into MDTs translates into improved aspiration pneumonia outcomes.
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.