ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
The State of Exercise-Based Dysphagia Intervention in the Literature: A Scoping Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The State of Exercise-Based Dysphagia Intervention in the Literature: A Scoping Review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
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
Introduction: Exercise-based interventions for dysphagia are frequently recommended in the clinical setting. We aim to characterize the state of the dysphagia treatment literature to provide a high-level overview on four domains: Study characteristics, patient populations, exercise characteristics, and outcome measures reported. This review acts as an initial step in analyzing the proposed gap between research and clinical practice patterns. Methods: A search strategy was executed across five databases to capture publications evaluating the impact of exercise-based interventions on swallow function. After removing duplicates, 20,583 abstracts were screened for inclusion, with 505 studies eligible for full-text review. After applying exclusionary criteria, information was extracted from 204 publications. Results: Results indicate that studies are predominantly prospective (88%) and often randomized controlled trials (44%) typically completed in the outpatient setting (59%). Most studies represent homogenous patient groups (88%) with an average age of 64 years. Exercise paradigms average 40 days in length. Forty-six target exercises are reported, with Effortful Swallow being the most common (37%). Forty percent of studies evaluate the efficacy of a single exercise in isolation, followed by a combination approach of 4+ exercises (34%) and 2-3 exercises (26%). Thirty-seven different therapeutic devices are reported. Most (65%) studies use instrumental examinations to evaluate treatment efficacy, with 52 unique methods for analysis reported. Further, over 100 unique clinical outcome measures are reported. Conclusions: This scoping review highlights many relative strengths in the dysphagia treatment literature (e.g., on parameters related to study design and outcome measures). At the same time, the findings suggest that there is significantly less literature to extrapolate to typical clinical caseloads and practice patterns with respect to patient characteristics, care settings, and exercise characteristics. Level of Evidence: I, scoping review of available evidence.
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.