↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Brain Stimulation in Dysphagia Management

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
The Use of Brain Stimulation in Dysphagia Management
Published in
Dysphagia, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00455-017-9789-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andre Simons, Shaheen Hamdy

Abstract

Dysphagia is common sequela of brain injury with as many as 50% of patients suffering from dysphagia following stroke. Currently, the majority of guidelines for clinical practice in the management of dysphagia focus on the prevention of complications while any natural recovery takes place. Recently, however, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have started to attract attention and are applied to investigate both the physiology of swallowing and influences on dysphagia. TMS allows for painless stimulation of the brain through an intact skull-an effect which would normally be impossible with electrical currents due to the high resistance of the skull. By comparison, tDCS involves passing a small electric current (usually under 2 mA) produced by a current generator over the scalp and cranium external to the brain. Initial studies used these techniques to better understand the physiological mechanisms of swallowing in healthy subjects. More recently, a number of studies have investigated the efficacy of these techniques in the management of neurogenic dysphagia with mixed results. Controversy still exists as to which site, strength and duration of stimulation yields the greatest improvement in dysphagia. And while multiple studies have suggested promising effects of NIBS, more randomised control trials with larger sample sizes are needed to investigate the short- and long-term effects of NIBS in neurogenic dysphagia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 195 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 62 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Neuroscience 31 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 69 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 21 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,420,381
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#160
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,487
of 310,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 310,205 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.