MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220676919 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055124

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for children with dysphagia: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4220676919 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roni Propp, Peter J. Gill, Sherna Marcus, Lily Ren, Eyal Cohen, Jeremy Friedman, Sanjay Mahant

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaCINAHLMEDLINESwallowingRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewOropharyngeal dysphagiaPhysical therapyPsycINFOObservational studyAdverse effectMeta-analysisPediatricsPsychological interventionSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Dysphagia in childhood has important health impacts for the child and their family as well as the healthcare system. This systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia in children. METHODS: A search was performed on November 2020 in MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1947), PsycINFO (from 1806), CINAHL (from 1937), CENTRAL (from 1996) and Scopus (from 1970) databases. Studies of children (≤18 years) diagnosed with oropharyngeal dysphagia using NMES in the throat/neck region were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa assessment for observational studies. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to clinical heterogeneity in studies. RESULTS: Ten studies were included (5 RCTs, 4 case series, 1 cohort study; including 393 children, mean or median age below 7 years, including children with neurologic impairments). In all studies, swallowing function improved after NMES treatment. The standardised mean difference (SMD) for improvement of swallowing dysfunction in treatment compared with control groups in the RCTs ranged from 0.18 (95% CI -0.7 to 1.06) to 1.49 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.41). Eight of 10 studies reported on the child's feeding ability, and, with one exception, there was improvement in feeding ability. Few studies reported on health status (N=2), impact on caregiver (N=1), adverse events and harms (N=2), and child's quality of life (N=1). In most studies, outcome follow-up was less than 6 months. The studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: NMES treatment may be beneficial in improving swallowing function for children with dysphagia, however, given the quality of the studies, inadequate outcome reporting, and short follow-up duration, uncertainty remains. Well-designed RCTs are needed to establish its effectiveness before its adoption in clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019147353.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207