SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
Efficacy of Motor Imagery in the Treatment of Poststroke Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Motor Imagery in the Treatment of Poststroke Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
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
Abstract
backgroundPoststroke dysphagia impairs patients' quality of life and survival. Motor imagery (MI) is increasingly used as a rehabilitation adjunct, but its efficacy requires validation. This study aims to evaluate MI's effectiveness in treating poststroke dysphagia.
methodsAn extensive literature search was conducted across eight English and Chinese electronic databases (from inception to April 2025) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of MI combined with conventional therapy (experimental group) versus conventional therapy alone (control group) on poststroke dysphagia. The methodological rigor was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Data analysis of the outcome measures was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software, with bootstrapped analysis to test the accuracy of primary outcomes.
resultsPooled analysis of 13 RCTs involving 1053 patients with poststroke dysphagia demonstrated that, compared to the control group, the MI supplementation group showed significantly lower water swallowing test scores (MD: -0.64, 95% CI: -0.76, -0.51, p < 0.00001) and standardized swallowing assessment scores (MD: -2.26, 95% CI: -2.94, -1.57, p < 0.00001) and higher swallowing quality of life scores (MD: 22.03, 95% CI: 7.25, 36.81, p = 0.003). Bootstrapping analysis substantiated the precision of these results. Furthermore, the meta-analysis revealed that add-on MI therapy significantly reduced the incidence of aspiration pneumonia (RR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.53, p = 0.0003) and increased clinical efficacy (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39, p = 0.001). However, no significant effects were observed on aspiration incidence, malnutrition, or nasogastric tube removal rates.
conclusionOur findings support that MI therapy can be implemented as an add-on approach for poststroke dysphagia. More high-quality RCTs from multicenters are needed to provide more reliable evidence and explore the optimal treatment protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.