Effects of Expiratory Muscle Strength Training on Videofluoroscopic Measures of Swallowing: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Expiratory muscle strength training (EMST) is increasingly utilized in dysphagia rehabilitation; however, little is known about the effects of this approach on swallowing function or physiology. We conducted a systematic review to appraise and synthesize evidence regarding the effects of EMST on videofluoroscopic measures of swallowing in individuals with medical diagnoses, in which dysphagia is a concern. Method A literature search was conducted according to Cochrane guidelines. Of 292 nonduplicate articles, 11 were judged to be relevant for review. These underwent detailed review for study quality, risk of bias evaluation, and synthesis of swallowing outcomes. Results The selected articles described EMST in a variety of patient populations using either the EMST150 or the Phillips Threshold positive expiratory pressure device. The typical protocol involved five sets of five breaths through the device (25 breaths/day), 5 days per week for 4 weeks. Exercise loads were set between 50% and 75% depending on the population, and treatment was typically supervised by a clinician weekly. The Penetration-Aspiration Scale was the most commonly reported videofluoroscopic outcome measure. Conclusions differed as to whether or not swallowing improved following a course of EMST. Differences in videofluoroscopy protocols, methods of summarizing participant performance, and statistical approaches across studies meant that meta-analysis of swallowing outcomes could not be completed. Conclusion This review failed to find clear evidence regarding the effects of EMST on videofluoroscopic measures of swallowing. Heterogeneity in the etiologies and baseline severity of dysphagia across studies and in the methods used to measure swallowing outcomes was a particular barrier to data synthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".