Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveTo assess the electrical activity of the suprahyoid muscle and the tongue pressure in a two-wing program of tongue strengthening in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsA pre-post-detraining design study included sixty PD patients assigned to two groups randomly. The experimental group (EG) performed tongue isometric pressure exercises using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument with an increasing scheme of 5% load weekly and traditional tongue therapy for 8 weeks. The control group (CG) performed only traditional therapy. The electrical activity of suprahyoids was measured using surface electromyography (sEMG) during tongue-to-palate pressure. Four selected domains of the Swallowing Quality of Life Questionnaire (SWAL-QOL) mostly related to tongue strength were considered.ResultsThe experimental group showed increased sEMG values of suprahyoid muscles reaching statistically significant difference at the fourth week of tongue training, while the control did it at the eighth week. Experimental group showed significant improvements in tongue strength (d = 2.128; p = 0.000). Only controls showed detraining effect. Statistically significant difference within groups were found in one and three dimensions of the SWAL-QOL in the CG and EG, respectively.ConclusionAnalysis of electrical activity on suprahyoids muscles provided a better understanding of the changes underlying the outcomes of tongue strength gains obtained through a combined tongue strengthening exercises protocol in PD. Such protocol led not only to increased tongue strength but also to a better perceived swallowing function in PD subjects.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.