| Title |
Validation of the Videofluoroscopic Dysphagia Scale in Various Etiologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-014-9524-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juyong Kim, Byung-Mo Oh, Jung Yoon Kim, Goo Joo Lee, Seung Ah Lee, Tai Ryoon Han |
| Abstract |
The videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale (VDS) was developed as an objective predictor of the prognosis of dysphagia after stroke. We evaluated the clinical validity of the VDS for various diseases. We reviewed the medical records of 1,995 dysphagic patients (1,222 men and 773 women) who underwent videofluoroscopic studies in Seoul National University Hospital from April 2002 through December 2009. Their American Speech–Language–Hearing Association’s National Outcome Measurement System (ASHA NOMS) swallowing scale, clinical dysphagia scale (CDS), and VDS scores were evaluated on the basis of the clinical and/or videofluoroscopic findings by the consensus of two physiatrists. The correlations between the VDS and the other scales were calculated. The VDS displayed significant correlations with the ASHA NOMS swallowing scale and the CDS in every disease group (p < 0.001 in all groups, including central and peripheral nervous system disorders), and these correlations were more apparent for spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve system disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases (correlation coefficients between the VDS and the ASHA NOMS swallowing scale: −0.603, −0.602, and −0.567, respectively). This study demonstrated that the VDS is applicable to dysphagic patients with numerous etiologies that cause dysphagia |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,418,909
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#880
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,055
of 225,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#38
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 225,678 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.