FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2155204524> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2155204524 endingPage "385" @default.
• W2155204524 startingPage "371" @default.
• W2155204524 abstract "Background Trans‐oral surgical and non‐surgical management options for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma ( OPSCC ) appear to offer similar survival outcomes. Functional outcomes, in particular swallowing, have become of increasing interest in the debate regarding treatment options. Contemporary reviews on function following treatment frequently include surrogate markers and limit the value of comparative analysis. Objectives of review A systematic review was performed to establish whether direct comparisons of swallowing outcomes could be made between trans‐oral surgical approaches (trans‐oral laser microsurgery ( TLM )/trans‐oral robotic surgery ( TORS )) and (chemo)radiotherapy ((C) RT ). Type of review Systematic review. Search strategy MEDLINE , Embase and Cochrane databases were interrogated using the following Me SH terms: antineoplastic protocols, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, deglutition disorders, swallowing, lasers, and trans‐oral surgery. Evaluation method Two authors performed independent systematic reviews and consensus was sought if opinions differed. The WHO ICF classification was applied to generate analysis based around body functions and structure, activity limitations and participation restriction. Results Thirty‐seven citations were included in the analysis. Twenty‐six papers reported the outcomes for OPSCC treatment following primary (C) RT in 1377 patients, and 15 papers following contemporary trans‐oral approaches in 768 patients. Meta‐analysis was not feasible due to varying methodology and heterogeneity of outcome measures. Instrumental swallowing assessments were presented in 13/26 (C) RT versus 2/15 TLM / TORS papers. However, reporting methods of these studies were not standardised. This variety of outcome measures and the wide‐ranging intentions of authors applying the measures in individual studies limit any practical direct comparisons of the effects of treatment on swallowing outcomes between interventions. Conclusions From the current evidence, no direct comparisons could be made of swallowing outcomes between the surgical and non‐surgical modalities. Swallowing is a multidimensional construct, and the range of assessments utilised by authors reflects the variety of available reporting methods. The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory is a subjective measure that allows limited comparison between the currently available heterogeneous data, and is explored in detail. The findings highlight that further research may identify the most appropriate tools for measuring swallowing in patients with OPSCC . Consensus should allow their standardised integration into future studies and randomised control trials." @default.
• W2155204524 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2155204524 creator A5041167862 @default.
• W2155204524 creator A5064200945 @default.
• W2155204524 creator A5085605712 @default.
• W2155204524 date "2016-02-08" @default.
• W2155204524 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2155204524 title "Functional swallowing outcomes following treatment for oropharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of the evidence comparing trans‐oral surgery <i>versus</i> non‐surgical management" @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1522727274 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1564950817 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1601725013 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1910195226 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1957562218 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1967163652 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1967494799 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1973708454 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1977351998 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1979603340 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1987343012 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1993679321 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1994510965 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1994572649 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1999869433 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W1999910752 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2014421641 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2016081624 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2019482548 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2024245686 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2025111194 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2028278238 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2031309489 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2039190237 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2043453187 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2043627607 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2044989239 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2051044590 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2055898260 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2056128626 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2057691621 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2070669025 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2075893304 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2078433940 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2081142549 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2085889894 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2086495082 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2089600839 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2103562590 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2104143292 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2104283698 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2106354486 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2110240958 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2110311036 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2113220990 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2121882493 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2121913181 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2130068955 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2131673055 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2133173262 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2134468568 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2136798509 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2137560803 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2143685610 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2144693734 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2146294567 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2146624891 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2155161146 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2157368013 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2158534818 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2159510700 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2163547059 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W2169496348 @default.
• W2155204524 cites W4236026420 @default.
• W2155204524 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12526" @default.
• W2155204524 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26292983" @default.
• W2155204524 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2155204524 type Work @default.
• W2155204524 sameAs 2155204524 @default.
• W2155204524 citedByCount "20" @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242017 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242018 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242019 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242020 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242021 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242022 @default.
• W2155204524 countsByYear W21552045242023 @default.
• W2155204524 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2155204524 hasAuthorship W2155204524A5041167862 @default.
• W2155204524 hasAuthorship W2155204524A5064200945 @default.
• W2155204524 hasAuthorship W2155204524A5085605712 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C112497637 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2155204524 hasConcept C509974204 @default.

• next