↓ Skip to main content

Vocal Fold Immobility due to Birth Trauma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vocal Fold Immobility due to Birth Trauma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
Published in
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/0194599817726773
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jad Jabbour, Lauren M. North, David Bougie, Thomas Robey

Abstract

Objectives To describe the present understanding of birth trauma-related vocal fold immobility and quantitatively compare it with idiopathic congenital vocal fold immobility to explore whether it is a discrete entity. Data Sources PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases. Review Methods English-language, observational, or experimental studies involving infants with idiopathic congenital or birth trauma-related vocal fold immobility were included. Data from these studies were pooled with our institution's vocal fold immobility database, with the resultant idiopathic congenital and birth trauma cohorts compared regarding patterns and outcomes of immobility. Results The search returned 288 articles, with 24 meeting inclusion criteria. Of studies reviewing all-cause immobility, 8 of 9 (88.9%) identified birth trauma as an etiology, although birth trauma definitions and proposed mechanisms of immobility varied. The study subjects, combined with our institution's database, yielded 188 idiopathic congenital and 113 birth trauma cases. Compared with idiopathic congenital cases, birth trauma cases had a higher proportion of unilateral immobility (72 of 113 [63.7%] vs 52 of 188 [27.7%], P < .001) and rate of resolution (41 of 51 [80.4%] vs 91 of 159 [57.2%], P = .003). Resolution occurred in 24 of 26 (91.3%) unilateral and 17 of 25 (68.0%) bilateral birth trauma cases and in 30 of 40 (75.0%) unilateral and 59 of 109 (54.1%) bilateral idiopathic congenital cases ( P = .11 and .20, respectively). Conclusion While the definition and mechanism of birth trauma-related vocal fold immobility warrant further investigation, these findings suggest that it is distinct from idiopathic congenital vocal fold immobility, with a unique presentation and potentially more favorable outcomes. This can inform counseling and management for infants with otherwise unexplained immobility but known birth trauma.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
#3,045
of 4,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,831
of 323,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
#39
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 323,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.