Evidence Hub

Predictors of dysphagia screening and pneumonia among patients with intracerebral haemorrhage in China: a cross-sectional hospital-based retrospective study

Yong-Mei Deng, Jin-Ju Sun, Hongqiu Gu, Kaixuan Yang, Yong-Jun Wang, Zi-Xiao Li, Xing Zhao

BMJ Open, 2024

31 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to investigate factors associated with undergoing dysphagia screening (DS) and developing pneumonia, as well as the relationship between DS and pneumonia in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Design Our study was a cross-sectional hospital-based retrospective study. Study design and settings We derived data from the China Stroke Centre Alliance, a nationwide clinical registry of ICH from 1476 participating hospitals in mainland China. To identify predictors for pneumonia, multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify patient characteristics that were independently associated with DS and pneumonia. Participants We included 31 546 patients in this study with patient characteristics, admission location, medical history, hospital characteristics and hospital grade from August 2015 to July 2019. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcomes were DS and pneumonia during acute hospitalisation. Results In total, 25 749 (81.6%) and 7257 (23.0%) patients with ICH underwent DS and developed pneumonia. Compared with patients without pneumonia, those who developed pneumonia were older and had severe strokes (Glasgow Coma Scale 9–13: 52.7% vs 26.9%). Multivariable analyses revealed that a higher pneumonia risk was associated with dysphagia (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 4.02 to 4.68), heart failure (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.77) and smoking (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.12 to 0.20). DS was associated with lower odds of pneumonia (OR,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 31 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free