Evidence Hub

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Dysphagia and Associated Pneumonia in Patients With Stroke From India: A Call to Arms

R. Krishnamurthy, R. Balasubramanium, Priyanka Premkumar

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2022

13 citations

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 I2 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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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