↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Measurements of Tongue and Hand Strength and Endurance Using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI)

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Measurements of Tongue and Hand Strength and Endurance Using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI)
Published in
Dysphagia, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00455-013-9451-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Adams, Bernice Mathisen, Surinder Baines, Cathy Lazarus, Robin Callister

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence for the use of the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI) to measure strength and endurance of the tongue and hand in healthy populations and those with medical conditions. A systematic search of the scientific literature published since 1991 yielded 38 studies that addressed this purpose. The IOPI was used primarily for tongue strength (38 studies) and endurance (15 studies) measurement; relatively few studies measured hand strength (9 studies) or endurance (6 studies). The majority of the studies identified used the IOPI as an evaluation tool, although four used it as an intervention tool. Half the studies were conducted in healthy people, primarily adults. Most of the other participants had disorders with dysphagia, primarily Parkinson's disease or head or neck cancer. Age and gender, as well as a number of medical conditions, influence the values of tongue and hand strength. There is sufficient evidence to support the use of the IOPI as a suitable tool for measuring tongue strength and endurance and as an assessment tool for intervention studies, and there is growing support for its use to assess hand strength and endurance in healthy and clinical populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 255 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Other 24 9%
Researcher 16 6%
Other 59 23%
Unknown 73 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 20%
Neuroscience 10 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 81 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,269,828
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#551
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,491
of 196,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 196,997 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.