ArticleDysphagia2020
Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation on the Submental Area: The Relations of Biopsychological Factors with Maximum Amplitude Tolerance and Perceived Discomfort Level.
Article in Dysphagia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Submental transcutaneous electrical stimulation can impact the timing of laryngeal vestibule closure.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Effects of Varying Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation Pulse Duration on Swallowing Kinematics in Healthy Adults.Dysphagia · 2022Article
- Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) on salivary flow in healthy adults.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) is a frequently used adjunctive modality in dysphagia rehabilitation. Stimulating deeper swallowing muscles requires higher TES amplitude. However, TES amplitude is limited by maximum amplitude tolerance (MAT). Previous studies have reported high interindividual variability regarding MAT and perceived discomfort. This variability might be one of the potential reasons of conflicting outcomes in TES-based swallowing studies. MAT and perceived discomfort are influenced by a variety of biopsychological factors. The influence of these factors related to swallow applications is poorly understood. This study explored the relation of biopsychological factors with MAT and perceived discomfort related to TES in the submental area. A convenience sample of thirty community-dwelling older adults between 60 and 70 years of age provided data for this study. Gender, submental adipose tissue thickness, perceptual pain sensitivity, and pain-coping strategies were evaluated for each subject. Subsequently, MAT and perceived discomfort level were determined using TES on the submental area. Relation of different biopsychological variables with MAT and discomfort level was examined using Pearson and Spearman correlation, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results indicated that neither gender nor adipose thickness was related to MAT and perceived discomfort. Among studied pain-coping strategies, catastrophizing was significantly related to MAT(r = - 0.552, p < .002). Distraction was significantly related to perceived discomfort level (r = - 0.561, p < 0.002). Given the negative impact of pain catastrophizing on MAT and the positive impact of distraction on perceiving discomfort, these coping strategies should be considered as amplitude-limiting and discomfort-moderating factors in TES-based dysphagia rehabilitation.
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.