Interventional procedure overview of electrical stimulation of the pharynx for neurogenic dysphagia
Closed for comments This consultation ended on at Request commenting lead permission
The evidence assessed
Rapid review of literature
The medical literature was searched to identify studies and reviews relevant to electrical stimulation of the pharynx for neurogenic dysphagia. The following databases were searched, covering the period from their start to 28 March 2022: MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and other databases. Trial registries and the internet were also searched. No language restriction was applied to the searches (see the literature search strategy). Relevant published studies identified during consultation or resolution that are published after this date may also be considered for inclusion.
The inclusion criteria were applied to the abstracts identified by the literature search. If selection criteria could not be determined from the abstracts the full paper was retrieved.
Characteristic | Criteria |
|---|---|
Publication type | Clinical studies were included. Emphasis was placed on identifying good quality studies. Abstracts were excluded if no clinical outcomes were reported, or if the paper was a review, editorial, or a laboratory or animal study. Conference abstracts were also excluded because of the difficulty of appraising study methodology, unless they reported specific adverse events that were not available in the published literature. |
Patient | Patients with neurogenic dysphagia. |
Intervention/test | Electrical stimulation of the pharynx. |
Outcome | Articles were retrieved if the abstract contained information relevant to the safety and/or efficacy. |
Language | Non-English-language articles were excluded unless they were thought to add substantively to the English-language evidence base. |
List of studies included in the IP overview
This IP overview is based on 524 patients from 2 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 2 RCTs, 1 registry analysis, and 2 pilot studies. There was considerable overlap between the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Both RCTs were identified in the systematic reviews – Bath (2016) was included in both meta-analyses; Dziewas (2018) was only included in Cheng (2021).
Other studies that were considered to be relevant to the procedure but were not included in the main summary of the key evidence are listed in the appendix.
How are you taking part in this consultation?
You will not be able to change how you comment later.
You must be signed in to answer questions