Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Dysphagia and Associated Pneumonia in Patients With Stroke From India: A Call to Arms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of reported dysphagia and associated pneumonia risk among patients with stroke in India. Method: We carried out a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome of interest was dysphagia and pneumonia among patients with stroke in India. Two review authors independently assessed the quality of studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and extracted related data. Meta-analysis was performed for frequency of dysphagia, associated pneumonia, and its relative risk using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was computed using the I 2 index. Results: A total of 3,644 titles were screened, and only eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Based on data from these studies, we calculated the pooled prevalence of dysphagia (47.71%; 95% confidence interval [CI] [20.49%, 70.92%], p < .001) and pneumonia (20.43%; 95% CI [10.73%, 30.14%], p < .001) for patients with stroke in India. We found that the relative risks of pneumonia in patients with stroke and dysphagia versus those patients with stroke and no dysphagia was 9.41 (95% CI [5.60, 15.80], p < .001). Data on length of hospital stay and rates of mortality secondary to pneumonia are also presented. Conclusions: Despite the high incidence of dysphagia and associated pneumonia, the methodological quality of studies is fair and there is little research focused on epidemiological data. We call to arms to those SLPs working with patients with stroke in India to become proactive in both clinical practice and research domains. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17701022
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".