Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of dysphagia in older adults, subgrouping by recruitment settings and varying dysphagia assessment methods. Methods: Five major databases were systematically searched through January 2022. A random-effects model for meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the pooled prevalence. Results: Prevalence of dysphagia in the community-dwelling elderly screened by water swallow test was 12.14% (95% CI: 6.48% to 19.25%, I2 = 0%), which was significantly lower than the combined prevalence of 30.52% (95% CI: 21.75% to 40.07%, I2 = 68%) assessed by Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) and volume-viscosity swallow test (V−VST). The dysphagia prevalence among elderly nursing home residents evaluated by SSA was 58.69% (95% CI: 47.71% to 69.25%, I2 = 0%) and by the Gugging Swallowing Screen test (GUSS) test was 53.60% (95% CI: 41.20% to 65.79%, I2 = 0%). The prevalence of dysphagia in hospitalized older adults screened by the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool was 24.10% (95% CI: 16.64% to 32.44%, I2 = 0%), which was significantly lower than those assessed by V-VST or GUSS tests of 47.18% (95% CI: 38.30% to 56.14%, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Dysphagia is prevalent in the elderly, affecting approximately one in three community-dwelling elderly, almost half of the geriatric patients, and even more than half of elderly nursing home residents. The use of non-validated screening tools to report dysphagia underestimates its actual prevalence.

Background: To date, there is no conclusive evidence that transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (TNMES) benefits patients with post-stroke dysphagia (PSD). In addition, the optimal TNMES electrode placement has not been well-established. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate these two research gaps. Methods: Five major databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through January 2022. Effect sizes were computed using Hedges’ g statistic, which were then entered into the random-effects model to obtain pooled effect estimates. Results: Twenty-four RCTs met the eligibility criteria. On the improvement of swallowing function, TNMES alone was not superior to conventional swallowing therapies (CSTs); combined therapy of TNMES and CSTs significantly surpassed CSTs alone (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.68 to 1.14, p< 0.0001; I2 = 63%). Moreover, significant pooled effect sizes were observed in subgroups with horizontal electrode placement above the hyoid bone (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.16; I2 = 0%) and horizontal electrode placement just above and below the hyoid bone (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.14; I2 = 0%). The largest pooled effect size was observed in the subgroup that individualized electrode placement according to dysphagia evaluation (SMD = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.38 to 2.91; I2 = 90%). Conclusion: TNMES should be used in combination with CSTs for PSD. Horizontal electrode placement should target suprahyoid muscles or both suprahyoid and thyrohyoid muscles.

Purpose Robot-assisted gait rehabilitation has been proposed as a plausible supplementary rehabilitation strategy in stroke rehabilitation in the last decade. However, its exact benefit over traditional rehabilitation remain sparse and unclear. It is therefore the purpose of the current study to comparatively investigate the clinical benefits of the additional robot-assisted training in acute stroke patients compared to standard hospital rehabilitation alone. Methods Ninety acute stroke patients (< 3 month) were recruited. All participants received the standard hospital neurorehabilitation comprises 45–60 min sessions daily for 3 weeks. Sixty patients also received an additional 30 min of robot-assisted gait training with the HIWIN MRG-P100 gait training system after each of the standard neurorehabilitation session. Outcome measures included: 1. Berg Balance Scale (BBS); 2. Brunnstrom Stage; 3. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and 4. Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire (TDQ) which were assessed pre-treatment and then after every five training sessions. Results Both groups demonstrated significant improvement pre- and post-treatment for the BBS (robotic group p = 0.023; control group p = 0.033) but no significant difference (p > 0.1) between the groups were found. However, the robotic training group had more participants demonstrating larger BBS points of improvement as well as greater Brunnstrom stage of improvement, when compared to the control group. No significant within and between group statistical differences (p > 0.3) were found for Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire. Conclusion The addition of robotic gait training on top of standard hospital neurorehabilitation for acute stroke patients appear to produce a slightly greater improvement in clinical functional outcomes, which is not transferred to psychological status.