Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe majority of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) develop oropharyngeal dysphagia during the course of their disease. However, the efficacy of dysphagia treatments for these patients remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate treatment efficacy based on the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsFive electronic databases were systematically searched from inception date to April 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted and analyzed the data. The outcome measures were changes in swallowing-related characteristics based on instrumental swallowing assessments.Key resultsAn initial search identified 187 RCT studies of relevance. After screening, nine studies with a total sample size of 286 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size for all dysphagia treatments compared with control comparators was significant and medium (SMD [95% CI] = 0.58 [0.22, 0.94], p = 0.001; I2 = 50%). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant and medium pooled effect size for stimulation treatments (brain stimulation, peripheral neurostimulation and acupuncture) (SMD [95% CI] = 0.54 [0.15, 0.92]; p = 0.006; I2 = 22%). Specifically, the effect sizes for the single RCTs on neuromuscular stimulation (SMD [95% CI] = 1.58 [0.49, 2.86]; p = 0.005) and acupuncture (SMD [95% CI] = 0.82 [0.27, 1.37]; p = 0.003) were significant and large.Conclusions and inferencesOur results showed that overall, dysphagia treatments, particularly stimulation treatments, can potentially benefit PD patients. However, given the limited number of small RCTs for each type of treatment, the evidence remains weak and uncertain. Further large-scale, multicenter RCTs are warranted to fully explore their clinical efficacy in the PD population.
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.