SynthesisEuropean stroke journal2026
Effects of oral hygiene care on swallowing recovery in hospitalised patients with post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European stroke journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of oral hygiene care on swallowing-related outcomes in hospitalised patients with post-stroke dysphagia (PSD).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2026. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with a comparison group that reporting swallowing-related outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for non-RCTs. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to estimate mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsNine studies, comprising 7 RCTs and two non-RCTs, were included, with risk-of-bias ratings ranging from low risk to some concerns for RCTs and moderate risk for non-RCTs. Oral hygiene care increased the odds of achieving independent oral intake compared with usual care (OR = 2.54, 95% CI, 1.80; 3.59; I2 = 0%), corresponding to a 13% absolute increase (RD = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03; 0.23; I2 = 0%). Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS; scores 1-7), with higher scores indicating more independent and unrestricted oral intake, favoured oral hygiene care (MD = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.07; 0.72; I2 = 0%). Similarly, Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; scores 0-20), assessing swallowing safety and dysphagia severity, favoured oral hygiene care (MD = 2.93, 95% CI, 1.01; 4.85; I2 = 0%). The certainty of the evidence for achieving independent oral intake was rated as high.
conclusionOral hygiene care supports swallowing recovery in patients with PSD, particularly independent oral intake and should be considered an active component of dysphagia rehabilitation.
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.