Use of biofeedback combined with conventional therapy in the swallowing rehabilitation of older adults: an integrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: to identify biofeedback methods combined with conventional therapy in the swallowing rehabilitation of older adults. Methods :an integrative literature review that searched the LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, BIREME, SciELO, and Scopus databases, with no restrictions of time or language. The search items used were deglutition, biofeedback, elderly, rehabilitation, and their corresponding terms in Portuguese. The articles were evaluated with the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: out of the 73 articles found in the databases, four, with a longitudinal design, were considered eligible. The biofeedback methods described were accelerometry, pressure balloon, and surface electromyography. The swallowing disorders observed were hypofunctioning of articulatory organs, increased oral transit, decreased laryngeal elevation, residues in pyriform sinuses and vallecula, reduced cough reflex, and change in voice quality. Regarding the effectiveness assessment of the recommended technique, a study used the clinical assessment combined with videofluoroscopy, before and after the treatment, two studies used the videofluoroscopy before the treatment and clinical assessment after it, and one study used clinical assessment prior to the treatment and swallowing videoendoscopy after it. As for the assessment of bias risk, one article was classified as low, two as intermediate, and one as high, in terms of risk. Conclusion: the biofeedback methods combined with conventional therapy to treat dysphagia in older adults were accelerometry, pressure balloon, and surface electromyography, whose use had positive effects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".