TY - JOUR
T1 - Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials—Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation
AU - Speyer, Renée
AU - Sutt, Anna-Liisa
AU - Bergström, Liza
AU - Hamdy, Shaheen
AU - Heijnen, Bas Joris
AU - Remijn, Lianne
AU - Wilkes-Gillan, Sarah
AU - Cordier, Reinie
PY - 2022/1/31
Y1 - 2022/1/31
N2 - Objective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Results. In total, 42 studies reporting on peripheral neurostimulation were included: 30 studies on NMES, eight studies on PES, and four studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. When conducting meta analyses, significant, large and significant, moderate pre-post treatment effects were found for NMES (11 studies) and PES (five studies), respectively. Between-group analyses showed small effect sizes in favour of NMES, but no significant effects for PES. Conclusion. NMES may have more promising effects compared to PES. However, NMES studies showed high heterogeneity in protocols and experimental variables, the presence of potential moderators, and inconsistent reporting of methodology. Therefore, only conservative generalisations and interpretation of meta-analyses could be made. To facilitate comparisons of studies and determine intervention effects, there is a need for more randomised controlled trials with larger population sizes, and greater standardisation of protocols and guidelines for reporting.
AB - Objective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Results. In total, 42 studies reporting on peripheral neurostimulation were included: 30 studies on NMES, eight studies on PES, and four studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. When conducting meta analyses, significant, large and significant, moderate pre-post treatment effects were found for NMES (11 studies) and PES (five studies), respectively. Between-group analyses showed small effect sizes in favour of NMES, but no significant effects for PES. Conclusion. NMES may have more promising effects compared to PES. However, NMES studies showed high heterogeneity in protocols and experimental variables, the presence of potential moderators, and inconsistent reporting of methodology. Therefore, only conservative generalisations and interpretation of meta-analyses could be made. To facilitate comparisons of studies and determine intervention effects, there is a need for more randomised controlled trials with larger population sizes, and greater standardisation of protocols and guidelines for reporting.
KW - deglutition
KW - swallowing disorders
KW - RCT
KW - intervention
KW - neuromuscular electrical stimulation
KW - pharyngeal electrical stimulation
KW - PES
KW - NMES
KW - Intervention
KW - Pharyngeal electrical stimulation
KW - Deglutition
KW - Swallowing disorders
KW - Neuromuscular electrical stimulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123631462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm11030776
DO - 10.3390/jcm11030776
M3 - Review article
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 11
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 3
M1 - e776
ER -