| Title |
An Investigation of the Post-laryngectomy Swallow Using Videofluoroscopy and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-017-9862-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margaret M. Coffey, Neil Tolley, David Howard, Michael Drinnan, Mary Hickson |
| Abstract |
This study investigates the post-laryngectomy swallow. Presence and degree of residue on the post-laryngectomy swallow as observed on videofluoroscopy and FEES is described. In addition, videofluoroscopy and FEES are assessed for reliability and inter-instrument agreement. 30 laryngectomy subjects underwent dysphagia evaluation using simultaneous videofluoroscopy and FEES. These were reviewed post-examination by three expert raters using a rating scale designed for this purpose. Raters were blinded to subject details, type of laryngectomy surgery, pairing of FEES and videofluoroscopy examinations and the scores of other raters. There was a finding of residue in 78% of videofluoroscopy ratings, and 83% of FEES ratings. Comparison of the tools indicated poor inter-rater reliability and poor inter-instrument agreement. Dysphagia is an issue post laryngectomy as measured by patient self-report and by instrumental evaluation. However, alternative dysphagia rating tools and dysphagia evaluation tools are required to enable accurate identification and intervention for underlying swallow physiology post laryngectomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 10 | 53% |
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 21% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,459,019
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#133
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,568
of 456,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 456,834 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.