|
| Study | Study design | Sample size | Dysphagia etiology | Type of intervention | Outcome measures | Key findings |
|
| Freed et al. [2] | Case-control study | 11 | Stroke | TES vs. TT | Swallow function score | Swallowing function was improved in both groups. The score change was greater in TES vs. TT group. |
|
| Blumenfeld et al. [3] | Retrospective cohort study | 80 (40 patients and 40 controls) | Mixed | TES vs. TT | Swallow severity scale | Patients who underwent TES demonstrated better swallowing function. |
|
| Kushner et al. [4] | Case-control study | 92 (46 patients and 46 controls) | Stroke | TES+TT vs. TT | FOIS | Both TES+TT and TT improved swallowing functions. Swallowing function was greater when TES was combined with TT compared with TT alone. |
|
| Lee et al. [5] | RCT | 57 (31 patients and 26 controls) | Stroke | TES+TT vs. TT | FOIS | Both TES+TT and TT improved swallowing functions. Swallowing function was greater when TES was combined with TT compared with TT alone. |
|
| Sun et al. [6] | Case-series | 29 | Stroke | TES+FEES+TT | FOIS | Combined dysphagia rehabilitation (TES+FEES+TT) improved swallowing function. |
|
| Tang et al. [7] | Retrospective cohort study | 103 (53 patients, 50 control) | Alzheimer’s disease | TES+sEMG vs. TT | Water swallow test. MNA aspiration pneumonia | Swallowing function, nutritional status, and airway safety were better in the experimental group |
|
| Ortega1 et al. [9] | RCT | 38 (19 patients and 19 controls) | Aging | Sensory TES vs. capsaicin | EAT-10 PAS VFSS | Both therapies improved the safety of swallow and oropharyngeal swallow response. |
|
| Zhang1 et al. [11] | RCT | 64 (16 TES+sham rTMS vs. 16 TES+ipsilateral rTMS vs. 16 TES+contralateral rTMS vs. 16 TES+bilateral rTMS) | Stroke | TES+sham rTMS vs. TES+ipsilateral rTMS vs. TES+contralateral rTMS vs. TES+bilateral rTMS) | Motor evoked potential, standardized swallowing assessment | Bi-rTMS/TES produced higher cortical activation and better swallowing function. |
|
| Baijens et al. [12] | RCT | 90 (30 TT, 30 motor TES, and 30 sensory TES) | Parkinson’s disease | Motor TES+TT vs. Sensory TES+TT vs. TT | Visuoperceptual ordinal variables in FEES and VFSS | Both TES groups had no significant impacts on swallowing function |
|
| Heijens et al. [13] | RCT | 85 (26 TT, 27 motor TES, and 30 sensory TES) | Parkinson’s disease | Motor TES vs. sensory TES vs. TT | FOIS SWAL-QOL MDADI DSS | DSS was significantly improved after treatment for all groups. Limited improvements on the SWAL-QOL and the MDADI for all groups. No significant differences were observed between groups. |
|
| Guillén-Solà et al. [15] | RCT | 62 (21 TT, 21 TT+IEMT, and 20 sham IEMT+ TES) | Stroke | TT vs. TT+IEMT vs. sham IEMT+TES | PAS maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures | Maximal respiratory pressures were mostly improved in group two (TT+IEMT). Swallowing security signs were improved in both groups two (TT+IEMT) and three (sham IEMT+ TES). No differences in PAS or respiratory complications were detected among three groups. |
|
| Carnaby et al. [16] | RCT | 53 (17 TT, 18 TES+ MDTP, 18 sham TES+MDTP) | Stroke | TT vs. TES+MDTP vs. sham TES+MDTP | MASA FOIS | TES+MDTP had poor outcome compared with sham TES +MDTP |
|
| Langmore et al. [17] | RCT | 127 (91 patients and 36 controls) | HNC | TES+TT vs. sham TES+TT | PAS OPSE VFSS PSS HNCI | TES+TT group had worse PAS scores compared with the control group. Nutrition and quality of life were improved for both groups. No other significant changes compared with baseline for both groups. |
|
