ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2015
Safety and efficacy of medically performed tongue piercing in people with tetraplegia for use with tongue-operated assistive technology.
Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assistive Technologies and Quadriplegia: A Map Point on the Development and Spread of the Tongue Barbell Piercing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Magnetic implants in the tongue for assistive technologies: Tests of migration; oromotor function; and tissue response in miniature pigs.Archives of oral biology · 2017Article
- Tongue implant for assistive technologies: Test of migration, tissue reactivity and impact on tongue function.Archives of oral biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with high-level spinal cord injuries need effective ways to perform activities.
objectivesTo develop and test a medically supervised tongue-piercing protocol and the wearing of a magnet-containing tongue barbell for use with the Tongue Drive System (TDS) in persons with tetraplegia.
methodsVolunteers with tetraplegia underwent initial screening sessions using a magnet glued on the tongue to activate and use the TDS. This was followed by tongue piercing, insertion of a standard barbell, a 4-week healing period, and an exchange of the standard barbell for a magnet-containing barbell. This was then used twice weekly for 6 to 8 weeks to perform computer tasks, drive a powered wheelchair, accomplish in-chair weight shifts, and dial a phone. Symptoms of intraoral dysfunction, change in tongue size following piercing, and subjective assessment of receiving and wearing a magnet-containing tongue barbell and its usability with the TDS were evaluated.
resultsTwenty-one volunteers underwent initial trial sessions. Thirteen had their tongues pierced. One individual's barbell dislodged during healing resulting in tongue-tract closure. Twelve had the barbell exchanged for a magnet-containing barbell. One subject withdrew for unrelated issues. Eleven completed the TDS testing sessions and were able to complete the assigned tasks. No serious adverse events occurred related to wearing or using a tongue barbell to operate the TDS.
conclusionsUsing careful selection criteria and a medically supervised piercing protocol, no excess risk was associated with tongue piercing and wearing a tongue barbell in people with tetraplegia. Participants were able to operate the TDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.