ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2024
Modification of velopharyngeal closure pressures during phonation by neuromuscular electrical stimulation in healthy individuals.
Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rhinophonia aperta may result from velopharyngeal insufficiency. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been discussed in the context of muscle strengthening. The aim of this study was to evaluate in healthy subjects whether NMES can change the velopharyngeal closure pattern during phonation and increase muscle strength. Method: Eleven healthy adult volunteers (21-57 years) were included. Pressure profiles were measured by high resolution manometry (HRM): isolated sustained articulation of /a/ over 5 s (protocol 1), isolated NMES applied to soft palate above motor threshold (protocol 2) and combined articulation with NMES (protocol 3). Mean activation pressures (MeanAct), maximum pressures (Max), Area under curve (AUC) and type of velum reactions were compared. A statistical comparison of mean values of protocol 1 versus protocol 3 was carried out using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Ordinally scaled parameters were analyzed by cross table. Results: MeanAct values measured: 17.15±20.69 mmHg (protocol 1), 34.59±25.75 mmHg (protocol 3) on average, Max: 37.86±49.17 mmHg (protocol 1), 87.24±59.53 mmHg (protocol 3) and AUC: 17.06±20.70 mmHg.s (protocol 1), 33.76±23.81 mmHg.s (protocol 3). Protocol 2 produced velum reactions on 32 occasions. These presented with MeanAct values of 13.58±12.40 mmHg, Max values of 56.14±53.14 mmHg and AUC values of 13.84±12.78 mmHg.s on average. Statistical analysis comparing protocol 1 and 3 showed more positive ranks for MeanAct, Max and AUC. This difference reached statistical significance (p=0.026) for maximum pressure values. Conclusions: NMES in combination with articulation results in a change of the velopharyngeal closure pattern with a pressure increase of around 200% in healthy individuals. This might be of therapeutic benefit for patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency.
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.