↓ Skip to main content

Aspirating and Nonaspirating Swallow Sounds in Children

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aspirating and Nonaspirating Swallow Sounds in Children
Published in
Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, October 2016
DOI 10.1177/0003489416669953
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thuy Frakking, Anne Chang, Kerry O’Grady, Michael David, Kelly Weir

Abstract

Cervical auscultation (CA) may be used to complement feeding/swallowing evaluations when assessing for aspiration. There are no published pediatric studies that compare the properties of sounds between aspirating and nonaspirating swallows. To establish acoustic and perceptual profiles of aspirating and nonaspirating swallow sounds and determine if a difference exists between these 2 swallowing types. Aspiration sound clips were obtained from recordings using CA simultaneously undertaken with videofluoroscopic swallow study. Aspiration was determined using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale. The presence of perceptual swallow/breath parameters was rated by 2 speech pathologists who were blinded to the type of swallow. Acoustic data between groups were compared using Mann Whitney U-tests, while perceptual differences were determined by a test of 2 proportions. Combinations of perceptual parameters of 50 swallows (27 aspiration, 23 no aspiration) from 47 children (57% male) were statistically analyzed using area under a receiver operating characteristic (aROC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values to determine predictors of aspirating swallows. The combination of post-swallow presence of wet breathing and wheeze and absence of GRS and normal breathing was the best predictor of aspiration (aROC = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.70-0.94). There were no significant differences between these 2 swallow types for peak frequency, duration, and peak amplitude. Our pilot study has shown that certain characteristics of swallow obtained using CA may be useful in the prediction of aspiration. However, further research comparing the acoustic swallowing sound profiles of normal children to children with dysphagia (who are aspirating) on a larger scale is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 17 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,482,156
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
#942
of 1,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,681
of 333,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,908 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 333,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.