ReviewDysphagia2026
Comparison of the Efficacy of Electrical Stimulation Modalities in Treating Post-Stroke Dysphagia: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Dysphagia, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence on electrical stimulation for post‑stroke dysphagia (PSD) remains inconsistent. This meta‑analysis evaluated the efficacy of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and peripheral electrical stimulation (PES).Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating electrical stimulation therapy for patients with post-stroke dysphagia were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 12, 2024. The primary outcomes were the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS), Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale (DOSS), Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), and Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA). Secondary outcomes included pharyngeal transit time (PTT), oral transit time (OTT), and surface electromyography (sEMG) signals of swallowing muscles. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Short‑term: <4 weeks; long‑term: ≥4 weeks.39 RCTs were included. Electrical stimulation improved short-term DOSS (MD = 1.13, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.11, P = 0.02), long-term FOIS (MD = 1.20, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, P < 0.01), long-term PAS (MD = -1.47, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.33, P = 0.01), and long-term SSA (MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.01, P = 0.05), but not PTT or OTT. Daily treatment <30 minutes and total duration ≤3 weeks were associated with greater improvement. NMES showed stronger long‑term effects, whereas tDCS effects emerged immediately and persisted. Female proportion did not significantly affect outcomes (P > 0.05). Electrical stimulation is effective for post‑stroke dysphagia, with efficacy influenced by stimulation type and duration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42501088What 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.