The Benefit of Dysphagia Screening in Adult Patients With Stroke: A Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Early identification of dysphagia aims to mitigate the risk of health consequences in adults poststroke; however, the evidence from experimental trials alone is inconclusive. This meta-analysis assessed dysphagia screening benefit from both trial and observational data. Methods and Results Seven electronic databases were searched to December 2019. Unique abstracts and full articles were screened for eligibility by 2 independent blinded raters using a priori criteria and discrepancies resolved by consensus. Included studies were summarized descriptively and assessed for methodological quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Across studies, pooled estimates of health benefit were derived for homogeneous data using Review Manger 5.3. From the yield of 8860 citations, 30 unique articles were selected: 24 observational and 6 randomized trials. Across studies, comparisons varied: no screening versus screening, late versus earlier screening, informal versus formal screening, pre- versus postscreening, and pre- versus poststroke guidelines that included screening. Pooled estimates across comparisons favored experimental groups for pneumonia odds ratio (OR), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.45-0.72), mortality OR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.35-0.77), dependency OR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.35-0.85), and length of stay standardized mean difference, -0.62 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.20). Conclusions Combining evidence from experimental and observational studies derived a significant protective health benefit of dysphagia screening following adult acute stroke for pneumonia, mortality, dependency, and length of stay.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".