Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30950743›Full record

Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2019

The Recline and Head Lift Exercises: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Biomechanical Swallowing Outcomes and Perceived Effort in Healthy Older Adults.

Robert Brinton Fujiki, Abby J Oliver, Jaime Bauer Malandraki, Dawn Wetzel, Bruce A Craig, Georgia A Malandraki

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A comparison of the head lift exercise and recline exercise in patients with chronic head and neck cancer post-radiation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Variations in Hyoid Kinematics Across Liquid Consistencies in Healthy Swallowing.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021
    Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Robert Brinton FujikiDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Abby J OliverDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Jaime Bauer MalandrakiDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Dawn WetzelDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Bruce A CraigDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Georgia A MalandrakiDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Funding

Diversity SupplementT32DC000030 · NIDCD · PURDUE UNIVERSITY WEST LAFAYETTE · PI Arielle Borovsky, Preeti M. Sivasankar · 1991 to 2026
$5.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare biomechanical swallowing outcomes and perceived effort as well as detraining effects of the established Head Lift Exercise (HLE) and the novel Recline Exercise (RE) in healthy older adults. Method Twenty-two healthy older adults were randomized to perform either the RE or the HLE for a period of 6 weeks. Subjects underwent videofluoroscopic swallowing studies at 3 time points (baseline, postexercise, and following a 6-week detraining period). Primary outcome measures included biomechanical measures of superior and anterior hyoid excursion and upper esophageal sphincter opening, obtained using kinematic analyses on the recorded swallows. Perceived exertion ratings during exercise, as measured by the Borg scale, were included as a secondary outcome measure. Linear mixed-effects models were utilized to compare exercise groups and evaluation time points. Results The 2 exercise groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, or body fat percentage at baseline. Significant postexercise increases were seen in superior hyoid excursion, F(2, 36.7) = 24.01, p ≤ .0001, and anterior hyoid excursion, F(2, 36.7) = 5.40, p = .0088, for both exercise groups. Upper esophageal sphincter opening did not increase significantly following the exercise regimens, F(2, 36.5) = 2.14, p = .1322. Both groups displayed a significant decrease in perceived exertion levels over the course of the exercises, F(5, 98) = 23.73, p ≤ .0001. On average, Borg ratings were 20% lower for the RE group than the HLE group at all time points, F(5, 20) = 7.94, p = .0106, indicating that this exercise was perceived as easier to perform. Eighteen participants were followed after detraining, and no differences in detraining effects were seen between groups. In general, gains in biomechanical measures were better maintained on larger bolus types. Conclusions In healthy older adults, the HLE and the RE produced similar gains and detraining effects in biomechanical swallow outcomes. The RE exercise, however, required significantly less effort. These findings suggest that the RE is easier to perform for healthy older adults and thus may be a valuable treatment option for individuals who have difficulty performing the HLE. Further investigation in patients with dysphagia is warranted. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7742897.

Indexed as

HeadAgedAged, 80 and overDeglutitionExercise TherapyFemaleFluoroscopyHumansLiftingMaleMiddle AgedPhysical Exertion

Identifiers

PMID30950743
PMCPMC6802897

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.