Therapeutic swallowing exercises vs treatment: Swallowing function/efficiency Measured using a rating of oropharyngeal swallowing efficiency (OPSE) quantifying the interaction of the speed of bolus movement and safety/efficiency in clearing material from the oropharynx Dysphagia is defined as ...
It is very uncertain whether therapeutic swallowing exercises changes swallowing function/efficiency Measured using a rating of… compared with treatment (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Therapeutic swallowing exercises vs treatment Swallowing function/efficiency Measured using a rating of oropharyngeal swallowing efficiency (OPSE) quantifying the interaction of the speed of bolus movement and safety/efficiency in clearing material from the oropharynx Dysphagia is defined as ... · adults with advanced head and neck cancer It is very uncertain whether therapeutic swallowing exercises changes swallowing function/efficiency Measured using a rating of… compared with treatment (very low certainty). Therapeutic exercises for affecting post‐treatment swallowing in people treated for advanced‐stage head and… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Therapeutic exercises for affecting post‐treatment swallowing in people treated for advanced‐stage head and neck cancers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.