Cited by 1,973Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementVoice and Speech DisordersStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Dysphagia After Stroke: Incidence, Diagnosis, and Pulmonary Complications

Martino, Rosemary, Foley, Norine, Bhogal, Sanjit, Diamant, Nicholas, Speechley, Mark, Teasell, Robert·2005·Stroke

Abstract

Objective To determine the incidence of dysphagia and associated pulmonary compromise in stroke patients through a systematic review of the published literature. Methods Databases were searched (1966 through May 2005) using terms "cerebrovascular disorders," "deglutition disorders," and limited to "humans" for original articles addressing the frequency of dysphagia or pneumonia. Data sources included Medline, Embase, Pascal, relevant Internet addresses, and extensive hand searching of bibliographies of identified articles. Selected articles were reviewed for quality, diagnostic methods, and patient characteristics. Comparisons were made of reported dysphagia and pneumonia frequencies. The relative risks (RRs) of developing pneumonia were calculated in patients with dysphagia and confirmed aspiration. Results Of the 277 sources identified, 104 were original, peer-reviewed articles that focused on adult stroke patients with dysphagia. Of these, 24 articles met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The reported incidence of dysphagia was lowest using cursory screening techniques (37% to 45%), higher using clinical testing (51% to 55%), and highest using instrumental testing (64% to 78%). Dysphagia tends to be lower after hemispheric stroke and remains prominent in the rehabilitation brain stem stroke. There is increased risk for pneumonia in patients with dysphagia (RR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.07, 4.87) and an even greater risk in patients with aspiration (RR, 11.56; 95% CI, 3.36, 39.7…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000190056.76543.eb

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Early screening and structured dysphagia management improve outcomes in acute stroke.

    “Early screening and structured dysphagia management improve outcomes (Arnold et al., 2016; Martino et al., 2005), and enteral feeding strategies may be needed when aspiration risk is high (Duncan et al., 2020; Geeganage et al., 2012).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martino, R., Foley, N., Bhogal, S., Diamant, N., Speechley, M., & Teasell, R.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2005-12
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
2756-2763
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2058038301
Cited by
1,973
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 122 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 139 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 139 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 117 · 2017: 123 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 78 · 2012: 56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
dysphagia, aspiration pneumonia, stroke rehabilitation, brainstem infarction, hemispheric stroke, dysphagia screening, swallowing assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Deglutition Disorders, Humans, Pneumonia, Comorbidity, Incidence, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review