Effect of electrical stimulation on aspiration in children with cerebral palsy and dysphagia.
Sung-Ryoung Ma, Jong-Bae Choi
PMID 30774213WHAT IT FOUND
Lower penetration-aspiration scores were reported after four weeks of submental electrical stimulation in five children with cerebral palsy and dysphagia.
The study had no control group, so the score change cannot be treated as proof the stimulation caused it.
Key findings
01Five children with cerebral palsy spastic type and dysphagia, age younger than 5 years, received submental electrical stimulation for 30 min/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks.
02Swallowing was rated before and after on the 8-point penetration-aspiration scale, and the study had no control group.
03Penetration-aspiration scores decreased from 3.8 ± 1.5 to 2.1 ± 1.2 for semisolids and from 6.4 ± 2.1 to 4.3 ± 2.5 for liquids, with p<0.05.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only five children were included, so the results cannot be generalised to other children with cerebral palsy and dysphagia. There was no control group, so the study cannot show that the score changes were due to electrical stimulation. The paper calls the children spastic type and also lists hemiplegia type in the criteria, so the participant group is not stated consistently. The paper does not report whether other swallowing treatments were given alongside electrical stimulation. All children were under 5 years old and GMFCS level IV or V, so the results may not apply to children outside these criteria. The study reports only pre and post scores, so it does not show whether any change lasted beyond the 4-week period.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that electrical stimulation caused the swallowing change. The study had no control group and a very small sample, so other factors could explain the scores.