Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077087›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2015

Electrical pharyngeal stimulation for dysphagia treatment in tracheotomized stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Sonja Suntrup, Thomas Marian, Jens Burchard Schröder, Inga Suttrup, Paul Muhle, Stephan Oelenberg, Christina Hamacher, Jens Minnerup, Tobias Warnecke, Rainer Dziewas

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
22.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Hypersalivation: update of the German S2k guideline (AWMF) in short form.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2019
    Guideline
  6. Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Metaplasticity in swallowing system via cross-modal neurostimulation: A randomized crossover trial with magnetoencephalography.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Treating postextubation dysphagia after stroke with pharyngeal electrical stimulation -insights from a randomized controlled pilot trial.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sonja SuntrupDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany, sonjasuntrup@uni-muenster.de.
Thomas Marian
Jens Burchard Schröder
Inga Suttrup
Paul Muhle
Stephan Oelenberg
Christina Hamacher
Jens Minnerup
Tobias Warnecke
Rainer Dziewas
University Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTreatment of post-stroke dysphagia is notoriously difficult with different neurostimulation strategies having been employed with a variable degree of success. Recently, electrical pharyngeal stimulation (EPS) has been shown to improve swallowing function and in particular decrease airway aspiration in acute stroke. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess EPS effectiveness on swallowing function in severely dysphagic tracheotomized patients.

methodsAll consecutive stroke patients successfully weaned from the respirator but with severe dysphagia precluding decannulation were screened for eligibility. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either EPS (N = 20) or sham stimulation (N = 10) over three consecutive days. Primary endpoint was ability to decannulate the patient. Swallowing function was assessed using fiberoptic endoscopy. Patients having received sham stimulation were offered EPS treatment during unblinded follow-up if required. Investigators were blinded to the patient's study group allocation.

resultsBoth groups were well matched for age, stroke severity, and lesion location. Decannulation after study intervention was possible in 75% of patients of the treatment group and in 20% of patients of the sham group (p < 0.01). Secondary outcome parameters did not differ. No adverse events occurred.

conclusionIn this pilot study, EPS enhanced remission of dysphagia as assessed with fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), thereby enabling decannulation in 75% of patients.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyTracheotomyAgedDeglutition DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharynxSingle-Blind MethodStroke

Identifiers

PMID26077087
OpenAlexW622379124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.