***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Three studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two studies were based on oral sensorimotor interventions for participants with cerebral palsy compared to standard care and a third study trialled lip strengthening exercises for children with myotonic dystrophy type 1 compared to no treatment (Sjogreen 2010). A meta-analysis combining results across the three studies was not possible because one of the studies had participants with a different condition, and the remaining two, although using oral sensorimotor treatments, used vastly different approaches with different intensities and durations. The decision not to combine these was in line with our protocol. In this review, we present the results from individual studies for four outcomes: physiological functions of the oropharyngeal mechanism for swallowing, the presence of chest infection and pneumonia, diet consistency, and changes in growth. However, it is not possible to reach definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of particular interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia based on these studies. One study had a high risk of attrition bias owing to missing data, had statistically significant differences (in weight) across experimental and control groups at baseline, and did not describe other aspects of the trial sufficiently to enable assessment of other potential risks of bias. Another study was at high risk of detection bias as some outcomes were assessed by parents who knew whether their child was in the intervention or control group. The third study overall seemed to be at low risk of bias, but like the other two studies, suffered from a small sample size. The review demonstrates that there is currently insufficient high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials to provide conclusive results about the effectiveness of any particular type of oral-motor therapy for children with neurological impairment. There is an urgent need for larger-scale (appropriately statistically powered), randomised trials to evaluate the efficacy of interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia.
Output:

This review examined the effectiveness of interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment. The three studies included in the review examined oral sensorimotor treatments and lip strengthening interventions. We were interested in three primary outcomes, which were physiological functions of the oropharyngeal mechanism for swallowing (for example, lip seal maintenance), the presence of chest infection and pneumonia, and diet consistency, and three secondary outcomes, which were changes in growth, child's level of participation in the mealtime routine, and the level of parent or carer stress associated with feeding. We concluded that there is currently not enough high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials for any particular type of oropharyngeal dysphagia intervention in this population of children. There is a need for larger-scale randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effects of interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment.