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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Impact of nasogastric tubes on swallowing physiology in older, healthy subjects: A randomized controlled crossover trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical Nutrition, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.09.002 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lee N. Pryor, Elizabeth C. Ward, Petrea L. Cornwell, Stephanie N. O'Connor, Mark E. Finnis, Marianne J. Chapman |
Abstract |
The presence of a nasogastric tube (NGT) affects swallowing physiology but not function in healthy young adults. The swallowing mechanism changes with increasing age, therefore the impact of a NGT on swallowing in elderly individuals is likely to be different but is not yet known. The aims of this study were to determine the effects of NGTs of different diameter on (1) airway penetration-aspiration, (2) pharyngeal residue, and (3) pharyngeal transit, in older healthy subjects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 31% |
Spain | 1 | 8% |
Chile | 1 | 8% |
Ireland | 1 | 8% |
Japan | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 31% |
Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Chile | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 92 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Other | 8 | 9% |
Researcher | 8 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
Other | 20 | 22% |
Unknown | 27 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 30% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 22% |
Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 1% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Unknown | 33 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,220,023
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Nutrition
#1,117
of 3,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,389
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Nutrition
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 250,101 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 58% of its contemporaries.