Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26469360›Full record

Trial reportHead & neck2016

Efficacy of electrical stimulation and exercise for dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

Susan E Langmore, Timothy M McCulloch, Gintas P Krisciunas, Cathy L Lazarus, Douglas J Van Daele, Barbara Roa Pauloski, Denis Rybin, Gheorghe Doros

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Head & neck, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
24.9field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Susan E LangmoreDepartment of Otolaryngology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Timothy M McCullochDivision of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Gintas P KrisciunasDepartment of Otolaryngology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cathy L LazarusDepartment of Otolaryngology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Douglas J Van DaeleDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.
Barbara Roa PauloskiCommunication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Denis RybinData Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gheorghe DorosDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Boston University · USNorthwestern University · USThyroid Head and Neck Cancer Foundation · USUniversity Medical Center · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulation for Dysphagia in Head & Neck Cancer PatientsR01CA120950 · NCI · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI LANGMORE, SUSAN E · 2007 to 2011
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA120950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a highly sought after but poorly studied treatment for dysphagia among patients with head and neck cancer with dysphagia. This study investigated the efficacy of NMES in this patient population.

methodsIn this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 170 patients with head and neck cancer experiencing posttreatment dysphagia were randomized into active NMES + swallow exercise versus sham NMES + swallow exercise groups. Outcomes after a 12-week program included changes in fluoroscopy measures, diet, and quality of life.

resultsAfter the 12-week program, the active NMES group had significantly worse Penetration Aspiration Scale scores than the sham group. Both groups reported significantly better diet and quality of life. No other measures were significant.

conclusionNMES did not add benefit to traditional swallow exercises. Unfortunately, swallow exercises were not effective by themselves either. For patients with head and neck cancer with moderate to severe dysphagia caused by radiation therapy, current behavioral therapies are of limited help in reversing long-term dysphagia. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Head Neck 38: E1221-E1231, 2016.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyExercise TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeglutition DisordersDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomedysphagiaelectrical stimulationexercisehead and neck cancerradiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID26469360
PMCPMC4833725
OpenAlexW2176700651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.