↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004303.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Jones, Robert DS Pitceathly, Michael R Rose, Susan McGowan, Marguerite Hill, Umesh A Badrising, Tom Hughes

Abstract

Normal swallowing function is divided into oral, pharyngeal, and oesophageal phases. The anatomy and physiology of the oral cavity facilitates an oral preparatory phase of swallowing, in which food and liquid are pushed towards the pharynx by the tongue. During pharyngeal and oesophageal phases of swallowing, food and liquid are moved from the pharynx to the stomach via the oesophagus. Our understanding of swallowing function in health and disease has informed our understanding of how muscle weakness can disrupt swallowing in people with muscle disease. As a common complication of long-term, progressive muscle disease, there is a clear need to evaluate the current interventions for managing swallowing difficulties (dysphagia). This is an update of a review first published in 2004. To assess the effects of interventions for dysphagia in people with long-term, progressive muscle disease. On 11 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We checked references in the identified trials for additional randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 12 January 2016 for ongoing or completed but unpublished clinical trials. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of interventions for managing dysphagia in adults and children with long-term, progressive muscle disease, compared to other interventions, placebo, no intervention, or standard care. Quasi-randomised controlled trials are trials that used a quasi-random method of allocation, such as date of birth, alternation, or case record number. Review authors previously excluded trials involving people with muscle conditions of a known inflammatory or toxic aetiology. In this review update, we decided to include trials of people with sporadic inclusion body myositis (IBM) on the basis that it presents as a long-term, progressive muscle disease with uncertain degenerative and inflammatory aetiology and is typically refractory to treatment. We applied standard Cochrane methodological procedures. There were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported results in terms of the review's primary outcome of interest, weight gain or maintenance. However, we identified one RCT that assessed the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on swallowing function in people with IBM. The trial authors did not specify the number of study participants who had dysphagia. There was also incomplete reporting of findings from videofluoroscopic investigations, which was one of the review's secondary outcome measures. The study did report reductions in the time taken to swallow, as measured using ultrasound. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, although data for the follow-up period were lacking. It was also unclear whether the non-serious adverse events reported occurred in the treatment group or the placebo group. We assessed this study as having a high risk of bias and uncertain confidence intervals for the review outcomes, which limited the overall quality of the evidence. Using GRADE criteria, we downgraded the quality of the evidence from this RCT to 'low' for efficacy in treating dysphagia, due to limitations in study design and implementation, and indirectness in terms of the population and outcome measures. Similarly, we assessed the quality of the evidence for adverse events as 'low'. From our search for RCTs, we identified two other non-randomised studies, which reported the effects of long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in adults with IBM and lip-strengthening exercises in children with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Headaches affected two participants treated with long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, who received a tailored dose reduction; there were no adverse events associated with lip-strengthening exercises. Both non-randomised studies identified improved outcomes for some participants following the intervention, but neither study specified the number of participants with dysphagia or demonstrated any group-level treatment effect for swallowing function using the outcomes prespecified in this review. There is insufficient and low-quality RCT evidence to determine the effect of interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease. Clinically relevant effects of intravenous immunoglobulin for dysphagia in inclusion body myositis can neither be confirmed or excluded using the evidence presented in this review. Standardised, validated, and reliable outcome measures are needed to assess dysphagia and any possible treatment effect. Clinically meaningful outcomes for dysphagia may require a shift in focus from measures of impairment to disability associated with oral feeding difficulties.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Unspecified 30 20%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 40 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 35%
Unspecified 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 20%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 17 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,792,753
of 12,984,896 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,293
of 10,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,037
of 336,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,984,896 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.