| Title |
Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Kress, P. Schäfer, F. P. Schwerdtfeger, S. Rösler |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 45% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,552,623
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#201
of 3,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,930
of 195,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,100 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 195,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.