Effects of Therapy in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia by Speech and Language Therapists: A Systematic Review

Medical and paramedical treatments should be evaluated according to current standards of evidence-based medicine. Evaluation of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia fits into this growing interest. A systematic review is given of the literature on the effects of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia carried out by speech therapists. Thus, the review excludes reports of surgical or pharmacological treatments. The literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed and Embase. All available inclusion dates up to November 2008 were used. The search was limited to English, German, French, Spanish, and Dutch publications. MESH terms were supplemented by using free-text words (for the period after January 2005). Fifty-nine studies were included. In general, statistically significant positive therapy effects were found. However, the number of papers was rather small. Moreover, diverse methodological problems were found in many of these studies. For most studies, the conclusions could not be generalized; comparison was hindered by the range of diagnoses, types of therapies, and evaluation techniques. Many questions remain about the effects of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia as performed by speech and language therapists. Although some positive significant outcome studies have been published, further research based on randomized controlled trials is needed

Testing devices for the prevention and treatment of stroke and its complications

We are entering a challenging but exciting period when many new interventions may appear for stroke based on the use of devices. Hopefully these will lead to improved outcomes at a cost that can be afforded in most parts of the world. Nevertheless, it is vital that lessons are learnt from failures in the development of pharmacological interventions (and from some early device studies), including inadequate preclinical testing, suboptimal trial design and analysis, and underpowered studies. The device industry is far more disparate than that seen for pharmaceuticals; companies are very variable in size and experience in stroke, and are developing interventions across a wide range of stroke treatment and prevention. It is vital that companies work together where sales and marketing are not involved, including in understanding basic stroke mechanisms, prospective systematic reviews, and education of physicians. Where possible, industry and academics should also work closely together to ensure trials are designed to be relevant to patient care and outcomes. Additionally, regulation of the device industry lags behind that for pharmaceuticals, and it is critical that new interventions are shown to be safe and effective rather than just feasible. Phase IV postmarketing surveillance studies will also be needed to ensure that devices are safe when used in the ‘real-world’ and to pick up uncommon adverse events

Prophylactic swallowing therapy for patients with head and neck cancer: A three-arm randomized parallel-group trial

Background Intensive prophylactic swallowing therapy can mitigate dysphagia in patients with oropharyngeal (OP) SCC, however, presents service challenges. This trial investigated the clinical efficacy of three service models delivering prophylactic swallowing therapy during (chemo)radiotherapy ([C]RT). Methods Patients (n = 79) with OPSCC receiving (C)RT were were randomized to: (a) clinician-directed face-to-face therapy (n = 26); (b) telepractice therapy via "SwallowIT" (n = 26); or (c) patient self-directed therapy (n = 27). Swallowing, nutritional, and functional status were compared at baseline, 6-weeks, and 3-months post-(C)RT. Patients' perceptions/preferences for service-delivery were collated posttreatment. Results Service-delivery mode did not affect clinical outcomes, with no significant (P > .05) between-group differences or group-by-time interactions observed for swallowing, nutrition, or functional measures. Therapy adherence declined during (C)RT in all groups. SwallowIT and clinician-directed models were preferred by significantly (P = .002) more patients than patient-directed. Conclusions SwallowIT provided clinically equivalent outcomes to traditional service models. SwallowIT and clinician-directed therapy were preferred by patients, likely due to higher levels of therapy support