| Title |
Wet Voice as a Sign of Penetration/Aspiration in Parkinson’s Disease: Does Testing Material Matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-014-9552-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marília Sampaio, Natalie Argolo, Ailton Melo, Ana Caline Nóbrega |
| Abstract |
Wet voice is a perceptual vocal quality that is commonly used as an indicator of penetration and/or aspiration in clinical swallowing assessments and bedside screening tests. Our aim was to describe the clinimetric characteristics of this clinical sign using various fluid materials and one solid food in the Parkinson's disease (PD) population. Consecutive PD individuals were submitted for simultaneous fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and voice recording. Speech therapists rated the presence or absence of wetness and other voice abnormalities. Two binary endpoints of FEES were selected for comparison with an index test: low penetration (LP) and low penetration and/or aspiration (LP/ASP). The accuracy of wet voice changed according to the testing material in PD patients. Overall, the specificity of this indicator was better than its sensitivity, and the wafer cookie and yogurt drink yielded the best indices. Our data show that wet voice is clearly indicative of LP or LP/ASP in PD patients in case of positive test. However, in the case of a negative result, the wet voice test should be repeated or combined with other clinical tests to include or exclude the risk of LP or LP/ASP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 21% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 39 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#13,234,879
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#862
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,101
of 227,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 227,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.