SynthesisCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2025
A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effects of Sensory Modulation Treatments for Neurogenic Oropharyngeal Dysphagia.
Synthesis in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effects of Sensory Modulation Treatments for Neurogenic Oropharyngeal Dysphagia.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Orofacial Central Pattern Generators: Neuroanatomical and Clinical Insights into Sensory, Motor, Emotional Integration.Experimental neurobiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOropharyngeal sensory stimulation has been applied broadly in clinical dysphagia management, but evidence remains limited.
aimsWe aimed to determine its effectiveness in treating neurogenic dysphagia (ND). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using studies from PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, searched up to January 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing sensory stimulations, including electrical and gustatory stimulation, with sham controls or placebo. The outcome measurements included swallowing scales based on clinical and instrumental evaluations.
resultsWe included 16 RCTs (620 participants) in the meta-analysis. Overall, sensory stimulation significantly improved ND (n = 17, SMD [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.41, 1.20], p < 0.001; I
conclusionOropharyngeal sensory stimulation improves swallowing function and decannulation in ND, with minimal adverse effects. While electrical stimulation shows clear benefits, gustatory effects remain inconclusive. Further studies are warranted to optimize protocols and confirm efficacy.
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.