ArticleDysphagia2026
Age-Related Heterogeneity in the Association of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation With Swallowing Recovery: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in Dysphagia, 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
Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) has been used in dysphagia rehabilitation, but comparative evidence and treatment heterogeneity remain unclear. We conducted a single-center retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of inpatients undergoing dysphagia rehabilitation. Patients treated with rPMS plus individualized usual rehabilitation were matched 1:1 to historical controls treated before rPMS implementation (50 vs. 50). The primary outcome was change in Food Intake LEVEL Scale (FILS) from admission to discharge. Age-related heterogeneity was examined using a treatment-by-age interaction and exploratory stratified analyses (< 80 vs. ≥ 80 years). One control patient lacked discharge FILS and was excluded from the primary analysis (n = 99). Overall, rPMS was not associated with greater FILS improvement (+ 0.48, 95% confidence interval - 0.26 to 1.22; p = 0.202). Exploratory interaction analysis suggested age-related heterogeneity (interaction p = 0.008): in stratified analyses, rPMS was associated with greater improvement among patients aged < 80 years (+ 1.70, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 3.07; p = 0.015), whereas no association was observed among patients aged ≥ 80 years (-0.52, 95% confidence interval - 1.44 to 0.39; p = 0.258). Cognitive and total Functional Independence Measure change scores were higher in the rPMS group, but residual confounding remained plausible. In this matched observational study, rPMS was not associated with overall improvement in functional oral intake measured by FILS. Exploratory analyses generated a hypothesis of possible age-related heterogeneity, but this signal should not justify age-based treatment selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42816655What 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.