Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30547253›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2019

A systematic review of current methodology of high resolution pharyngeal manometry with and without impedance.

Katharina Winiker, Anna Gillman, Esther Guiu Hernandez, Maggie-Lee Huckabee, Kristin Gozdzikowska

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Katharina WinikerDepartment of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. katharina.winiker@pg.canterbury.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2739-1684
Anna GillmanThe University of Canterbury Rose Centre for Stroke Recovery and Research, Leinster Chambers, Level One, 249 Papanui Rd, Private Bag 4737, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
Esther Guiu HernandezDepartment of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Maggie-Lee HuckabeeDepartment of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Kristin GozdzikowskaDepartment of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Funding

Canterbury Medical Research Foundation PRO (16/04)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review appraises and summaries methodology documented in studies using high resolution pharyngeal manometry (HRM) with and without impedance technology (HRIM) in adult populations.

methodsFour electronic databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to, and including March 2017. Studies reporting pharyngeal HRM/HRIM for swallowing and/or phonatory assessment, published in peer-reviewed journals in English, German, or Spanish were assessed for the inclusion criteria. Of the selected studies, methodological aspects of data acquisition and analysis were extracted. Publications were graded based on their level of evidence and quality of methodological aspects was assessed.

resultsSixty-two articles were identified eligible, from which 50 studies reported the use of HRM and 12 studies used HRIM. Of all included manuscripts, the majority utilized the ManoScan™ system (64.5%), a catheter diameter of 4.2 mm was most prevalently documented (30.6%). Most publications reported the application of topical anesthesia (53.2%). For data analysis in studies using HRM, software intrinsic to the recording system was reported most frequently (56%). A minority of the studies using HRM provided data about measurement reliability (10%). This is higher for studies using HRIM (50%).

conclusionsConsiderable methodological variability exists regarding data acquisition and analysis in published studies using HRM/HRIM. Lacking reports of methodology make study replications difficult and reduce the comparability across studies. More data regarding the impact of individual methodological aspects on study outcomes are further required for the development of methodological recommendations.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, LocalCathetersDeglutitionElectric ImpedanceHumansManometryPharynxPhonationReproducibility of ResultsAnesthetics, LocalDeglutitionHigh resolution manometryImpedanceManometry

Identifiers

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.