Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Clinical Rehabilitation · September 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
ObjectiveTo compare rehabilitation interventions for dysphagia after head and neck cancer treatment using network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 21 July 2026.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials evaluating swallowing exercise, neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with exercise (NMES+ex), speech therapy combined with exercise (Speech+ex) or telerehabilitation were included. Random-effects network meta-analyses estimated Hedges' g standardised mean differences (SMDs) and treatment rankings across four outcome domains. Confidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.ResultsTwenty-one trials were included in the systematic review; 18 trials involving 1139 participants contributed to connected networks. Exercise improved clinician-rated swallowing compared with usual care (SMD 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 1.69) and instrumental swallowing compared with telerehabilitation (SMD 1.24, 0.07 to 2.42). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Speech+ex ranked highest for clinician-rated outcomes, exercise for instrumental outcomes and NMES+ex for patient-reported quality of life and symptom/handicap outcomes. In sensitivity analyses separating exercise types, prophylactic exercise ranked highest for instrumental and quality-of-life outcomes. Confidence ranged from moderate to very low and was very low for all patient-reported comparisons.ConclusionRehabilitation effects varied by outcome domain, with no consistently superior intervention. Exercise showed benefits for selected clinician-rated and instrumental outcomes, but sparse networks, imprecision and inconsistency limit certainty. These findings support individualised intervention selection and adequately powered trials using standardised outcomes.