ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Personalized swallowing rehabilitation program for post-surgical dysphagia in oral cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dysphagia following oral cancer ablative surgery with free flap reconstruction significantly impairs quality of life, yet personalized rehabilitation approaches remain understudied. This randomized controlled trial compared a personalized swallowing rehabilitation program with standard care in these patients. Methods: This single-center randomized controlled trial enrolled 300 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma who underwent tumor resection with free flap reconstruction between January 2022 and December 2025 at Shanghai Fengcheng Hospital. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a personalized swallowing rehabilitation program (n=150) incorporating neuromuscular electrical stimulation, surface electromyography biofeedback, tongue pressure resistance training, and individualized exercise protocols, or standard care (n=150) consisting of conventional swallowing exercises. The primary outcome was the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) scores, aspiration rates, time to oral feeding recovery, feeding tube dependency, and aspiration pneumonia incidence, assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Results: At 6 months, the personalized rehabilitation group demonstrated significantly higher FOIS scores compared with standard care (median, 7 [interquartile range (IQR), 6-7] vs 6 [IQR, 5-6]; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.00; P < 0.001; effect size r = 0.366). The intervention group showed superior MDADI composite scores (median, 75.57 [IQR, 65.99-86.06] vs 65.80 [IQR, 56.30-74.40]; P < 0.001), lower aspiration rates (12.0% vs 21.3%; relative risk, 0.56; P = 0.044), shorter time to oral feeding recovery (median, 15.84 vs 19.80 days; P < 0.001), and reduced feeding tube dependency at 6 months (8.7% vs 28.7%; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent benefits across tumor sites, clinical stages, and reconstruction types, though the effect was attenuated in patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (P = 0.201). The mean adherence rate in the intervention group was 78.96% ± 13.34%. Conclusions: A personalized swallowing rehabilitation program significantly improves functional swallowing outcomes, reduces aspiration risk, and enhances swallowing-related quality of life compared with standard care in oral cancer patients following surgical resection with free flap reconstruction. These findings support the integration of individualized, multimodal rehabilitation strategies into routine postoperative management.
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.