| Title |
Relationship of aspiration pneumonia to cognitive impairment and oral condition: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-018-2356-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Koji Naruishi, Yasufumi Nishikawa, Jun-ichi Kido, Akihiro Fukunaga, Toshihiko Nagata |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship of the incidence of aspiration pneumonia to cognitive impairment and the oral condition. A total of 1174 elderly patients were analyzed in a cross-sectional study. Cognitive function was evaluated by the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and the oral condition was evaluated by inspection and palpation. Swallowing was examined in 196 patients by video-endoscopic evaluation. The Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to compute the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Loss of posterior occlusion, impaired tongue movements, and impaired cognition were factors significantly related to aspiration pneumonia. The incidence of aspiration pneumonia was higher in patients with both cognitive impairment and loss of posterior occlusion compared with those having either factor alone (OR: 5.16). There was no statistical association between impaired swallowing and the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in elderly patients with normal cognitive function (cognitive impairment, OR: 3.45; normal function, OR: 0.94). Co-existence of cognitive impairment and oral frailty significantly enhances the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Early and simple evaluation of the oral condition and cognitive function can predict the risk of aspiration pneumonia. |
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 | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 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 > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,003,571
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#474
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,325
of 440,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#11
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 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 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 440,210 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 40 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 72% of its contemporaries.