| Title |
Telephonic voice intelligibility after laryngeal cancer treatment: is therapeutic approach significant?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-016-4217-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erika Crosetti, Marco Fantini, Giulia Arrigoni, Laura Salonia, Agata Lombardo, Alessio Atzori, Valentina Panetta, Antonio Schindler, Andy Bertolin, Giuseppe Rizzotto, Giovanni Succo |
| Abstract |
The aim was to investigate telephonic voice intelligibility in patients treated for laryngeal cancer using different approaches. In total, 90 patients treated for laryngeal cancer using different approaches and 12 healthy volunteers were recruited. Each patient and each healthy control read a list of words and sentences during a telephone call. Six auditors listened to each telephonic recording and transcribed the words and sentences they understood. Mean intelligibility rates for each treatment were assessed and compared. Regarding words, the poorest intelligibility was noted for type II open partial horizontal laryngectomies, followed by total laryngectomies. The best intelligibility was found for transoral laser microsurgery, followed by radiotherapy alone. For sentences, the poorest intelligibility was noted for type II open partial horizontal laryngectomies, followed by chemoradiotherapy. The best intelligibility was found for radiotherapy alone and transoral laser microsurgery. More aggressive surgery as well as chemoradiotherapy correlated with significantly poorer outcomes. Transoral laser microsurgery or radiotherapy alone ensured the best telephonic voice intelligibility. Intermediate-advanced T stages at diagnosis also showed significantly poorer intelligibility outcomes, suggesting that T stage represents an independent negative prognostic factor for voice intelligibility after treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 29% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 20% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#2,028
of 3,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#317,199
of 363,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#50
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.