Feeding and swallowing impairment in children with stroke and unilateral cerebral palsy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This systematic review targeted frequency estimates of dysphagia (feeding and swallowing problems), related health outcomes, and caregiver burden in children with stroke or unilateral cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched from their inception to November 2017 along with a manual search of eight relevant journals. Two blinded raters assessed abstracts and full articles for eligibility. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Accepted articles were evaluated for quality. Data were extracted and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 1660 abstracts, five met inclusion criteria, of which three focused on stroke and two unilateral CP. Across studies, operational definitions of feeding and swallowing varied. Insufficient details were provided on assessment methods and timing. Reported frequencies of dysphagia ranged from 24.2% to 88.6%. One study reported dysphagia-related health outcomes and none reported caregiver burden. INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that dysphagia is common in children with stroke and unilateral CP; however, its frequency is yet unknown as is its impact on health and caregiver burden. Availability of a standardized tool to identify dysphagia in these children accurately is a recommended first step to address this evidence gap. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: There is limited data on the incidence of dysphagia after childhood stroke and unilateral cerebral palsy. Available evidence shows reported dysphagia frequencies from 24.2% to 88.6%. Only one study reported on dysphagia-related health outcomes. No study reported on caregiver burden.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".