| Title |
MBS Measurement Tool for Swallow Impairment—MBSImp: Establishing a Standard
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-008-9185-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bonnie Martin-Harris, Martin B. Brodsky, Yvonne Michel, Donald O. Castell, Melanie Schleicher, John Sandidge, Rebekah Maxwell, Julie Blair |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to test reliability, content, construct, and external validity of a new modified barium swallowing study (MBSS) tool (MBSImp) that is used to quantify swallowing impairment. Multiple regression, confirmatory factor, and correlation analyses were used to analyze 300 in- and outpatients with heterogeneous medical and surgical diagnoses who were sequentially referred for MBS exams at a university medical center and private tertiary care community hospital. Main outcome measures were the MBSImp and index scores of aspiration, health status, and quality of life. Inter- and intrarater concordance were 80% or greater for blinded scoring of MBSSs. Regression analysis revealed contributions of eight of nine swallow types to impressions of overall swallowing impairment (p < or = 0.05). Factor analysis revealed 13 significant components (loadings >/= 0.5) that formed two impairment groupings (oral and pharyngeal). Significant correlations were found between Oral and Pharyngeal Impairment scores and Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores, and indexes of intake status, nutrition, health status, and quality of life. The MBSImp demonstrated clinical practicality, favorable inter- and intrarater reliability following standardized training, content, and external validity. This study reflects potential for establishment of a new standard for quantification and comparison of oropharyngeal swallowing impairment across patient diagnoses as measured on MBSS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 318 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 54 | 17% |
| Other | 36 | 11% |
| Researcher | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 63 | 20% |
| Unknown | 77 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 88 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 62 | 19% |
| Linguistics | 12 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 38 | 12% |
| Unknown | 97 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,380,114
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#129
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,779
of 106,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 106,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.