| Title |
Prophylactic Swallow Therapy for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Randomized Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-017-9790-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Pisano Messing, Elizabeth C. Ward, Cathy L. Lazarus, Melissa Kim, Xian Zhou, Jessica Silinonte, Dorothy Gold, Karen Harrer, Karen Ulmer, Samantha Merritt, Geoffrey Neuner, Marshall Levine, Ray Blanco, John Saunders, Joseph Califano |
| Abstract |
Evidence supporting prophylactic swallow exercises for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been universally demonstrated. This RCT examined diet level, feeding tube use, swallow function, and quality of life (QOL) of patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy who performed prophylactic swallowing exercises. Sixty HNC patients were randomized into exercise versus control groups. Swallowing, oromotor, toxicity, and QOL data were recorded (baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 months). Physiological swallow function was examined at baseline and 3 months. Swallow exercises were completed twice daily. Oral intake at 3 months was 10% better in the exercise group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.49). Significant (p < 0.05) differences in secondary outcomes including oromotor function, pharyngeal impairment, oral pharyngeal swallow efficiency, and incisal opening were noted at early time points (3-6 months) in the exercise group. Possible positive early improvements in swallow function are associated with swallowing exercises, although these improvements are not significant longer term. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 235 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 11% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 18% |
| Unknown | 91 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 20% |
| Psychology | 7 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 8% |
| Unknown | 101 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,608,511
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#970
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,730
of 311,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 311,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.