Trial reportBMJ open2025
Swallowing prehabilitation for people with head and neck cancer: a pilot cluster-randomised feasibility trial of the SIP SMART intervention.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of delivering the swallowing prehabilitation intervention known as Swallowing Intervention Package: Self-Monitoring, Assessment and Rehabilitation Training (SIP SMART) within the National Health Service (NHS) head and neck cancer care pathway.
designTwo-arm cluster-randomised pilot trial: SIP SMART2 trial. SETTING AND
participantsAdults newly diagnosed with stage II-IV head and neck cancer receiving curative treatment within a multidisciplinary team who agree to participate.
interventionsSix hospitals were randomised. Trained clinicians at the intervention sites delivered the manualised SIP SMART intervention, while standard care was provided at care as usual (CAU) sites. The intervention included two 45-minute consultations incorporating an X-ray swallow assessment, tailored exercises/advice and specific behaviour change strategies while CAU involved a single consultation of information giving and provision of a generic exercise sheet. OUTCOMES: Study outcomes related to feasibility of the cluster-randomised design, recruitment of both sites and patients and completeness of clinical and health economic data collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after treatment.
results12 hospitals expressed interest and six were randomised (50%) and provided data to the point of study completion. Patient recruitment across all sites (n=76) reached the target, although two sites fell short of their individual targets. The proportion of people with HNC recruited versus those eligible for each arm was 39% (95% CI 29 to 49) for SIP SMART group and 55% (95% CI 43 to 66) for CAU. The end point data at 24 weeks were completed for 50% (95% CI 33 to 67) for SIP SMART and 78% (95% CI 62 to 89) for CAU. Adherence to the intervention was above 50% at all time points. No harms related to the intervention were reported.
conclusionsIt is feasible to deliver the SIP SMART intervention embedded within the NHS cancer care pathway using a cluster-randomised design. A future trial will be optimised for efficiency in set-up and follow-up data collection based on these findings and learnings from the accompanying process evaluation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12377415.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.