ArticleHNO2018
[Newly developed biofeedback program for facial muscle training in patients with facial paralysis].
Article in HNO, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond motor recovery: emerging perspectives in the management of peripheral facial palsy-a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Selective zygomaticus muscle activation by ball electrodes in synkinetically reinnervated patients after facial paralysis.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with facial paralysis are significantly limited in their quality of life (QoL). If no irreversible nerve damage is apparent, intensive training of the facial muscles is recommended in addition to drug-based therapy with cortisone. In order to improve training, we have developed a digital biofeedback mirror with motion magnification to indirectly influence the vegetative nervous system.
objectiveThe aim of this work was to evaluate the reliability of the biofeedback program compared to clinical examination and classification according to House-Brackmann.
methodsOur biofeedback system is similar to a mirror with the additional advantage of increasing a patient's self-control. It not only reflects the patient's image, but also potentiates movement through video processing and a magnifying function. For this purpose, patient's facial movements are filmed and amplified in real-time. Thus, even the smallest movements can be made visible and measured so that patients receive feedback on nerve regeneration. This can increase patient's motivation for daily facial muscle training and improve compliance.
resultsIn the present study, restriction of QoL was evaluated and objectivized with Facial Clinimetric Evaluation Scale (FaCE) and Facial Disability Index (FDI) questionnaires. It was demonstrated that the patients' self-perception was associated with poor QoL.
conclusionIn the current study, measurement of the facial movements showed a reliable agreement with the clinical classification according to House-Brackmann. The biofeedback system is a reliable support tool during the regeneration phase in patients with facial paralysis..
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.