| Title |
Effects of Carbonated Liquids on Oropharyngeal Swallowing Measures in People with Neurogenic Dysphagia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-011-9359-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katerina Sdravou, Margaret Walshe, Lukas Dagdilelis |
| Abstract |
Aspiration is common in adults with neurogenic dysphagia and pharyngeal delay. This can lead to dehydration, malnutrition, and aspiration pneumonia. Diet modifications aimed at reducing thin liquid aspiration are partially successful or unpalatable or both. Carbonated liquids show some potential in influencing swallowing behavior. However, there is a paucity of evidence to support this intervention. This study compares the effects of carbonated thin liquids (CTL) with that of noncarbonated thin liquids (NCTL) on oropharyngeal swallowing in adults with neurogenic dysphagia and examines the palatability of the CTL stimulus. Seventeen people with pharyngeal delay attended for videofluoroscopy (VFSS). Outcome measures were oral transit time (OTT), pharyngeal transit time (PTT), stage transition duration (STD), initiation of the pharyngeal swallow (IPS), penetration-aspiration scale (PENASP), and pharyngeal retention (PR). A modification of Quartermaster Hedonic Scale (AQHS) was employed to assess palatability of the CTL. CTL vs. NCTL significantly decreased penetration and aspiration on 5-ml (P = 0.028) and 10-ml (P = 0.037) swallows. CTL had no significant effect on OTT, PTT, IPS, and PR for any volume of bolus. Only one participant disliked the CTL stimulus. These findings support the hypothesis that oropharyngeal swallowing can be modulated in response to sensory stimuli. Implications for research and clinical practice are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 January 2022.
All research outputs
#5,074,213
of 24,067,703 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#360
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,253
of 122,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,067,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 122,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.