| Title |
Relationship between masticatory function and frailty in community-dwelling Japanese elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40520-017-0888-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuhiro Horibe, Yutaka Watanabe, Hirohiko Hirano, Ayako Edahiro, Ken Ishizaki, Takayuki Ueda, Kaoru Sakurai |
| Abstract |
Frailty likely results in impaired functioning, and frail individuals requiring long-term care have recently attracted the attention of researchers. In the oral health field, the number of elderly individuals who require intervention for retaining occlusion has been increasing, as has the number of remaining teeth and required prosthetic treatment. Additionally, the number of elderly with reduced masticatory function has also been increasing, and frailty is a suspected factor. The aim of this study is to clarify the relationship between frailty and masticatory function decline. A cross-sectional study. A total of 747 participants (total mean age 73.6 ± 5.8 years old) underwent a comprehensive examination at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology. Three masticatory functions were evaluated: maximum occlusal force, mixing ability, and self-reported chewing ability. Frailty was determined using all 25 questions of the Basic checklist developed by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, following the method reported by Satake et al. Binomial logistic analysis clarified the relationship between frailty and evaluation of each of the three masticatory functions. Significant correlations of pre-frailty or frailty with maximum occlusal force, mixing ability, and subjective chewing ability were observed. All three masticatory functions (maximum occlusal force, mixing ability, and self-reported chewing ability) were associated with pre-frailty or frailty in community-dwelling Japanese elderly. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,523,434
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#1,122
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,297
of 448,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#19
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 448,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.