SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Predictive models for dysphagia in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dysphagia is a common condition among older adults, closely linked to aging and neurodegenerative diseases. It can lead to malnutrition, frailty, and aspiration pneumonia, thereby impairing quality of life and clinical outcomes. Although various interventions may improve swallowing function, early identification of high-risk individuals remains challenging. Existing predictive models show inconsistent performance and lack systematic evaluation. This study aimed to systematically review and assess predictive models for dysphagia risk in older adults. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across CNKI, the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering studies published up to September 15, 2025. Results: Of 7,113 records identified, 17 met inclusion criteria, with only two performing external validation. Reported AUCs ranged from 0.682 to 0.926, and all studies showed a high overall risk of bias. The pooled AUC from the meta-analysis was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88). Common predictors included advanced age, smoking history, reduced self-care ability, polypharmacy, frailty, malnutrition, cognitive impairment, and poor oral health. Discussion: Overall, predictive modeling for dysphagia in older adults remains in an early stage, limited by methodological flaws and insufficient external validation. Future research should follow PROBAST standards and conduct large, multicenter validations to improve model reliability and clinical utility.
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.