| Title |
Evaluation of Swallow Function in Patients with Craniofacial Microsomia: A Retrospective Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-017-9851-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lara S. van de Lande, Cornelia J. J. M. Caron, Britt. I. Pluijmers, Koen F. M. Joosten, Marloes Streppel, David J. Dunaway, Maarten J. Koudstaal, Bonnie L. Padwa |
| Abstract |
Craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is characterized by underdevelopment of the structures derived from the first and second pharyngeal arches resulting in aesthetic, psychological, and functional problems including feeding and swallowing difficulties. The aim of this study is to gain more insight into swallowing difficulties in patients with CFM. A retrospective study was conducted in the population of patients diagnosed with CFM at three major craniofacial units. Patients with feeding difficulties and those who underwent video fluoroscopic swallow (VFS) studies were included for further analyses. The outcome of the VFS-studies was reviewed with regard to the four phases of swallowing. In our cohort, 13.5% of the 755 patients were diagnosed with swallowing difficulties. The outcome of the VFS-studies of 42 patients showed difficulties in the oral and pharyngeal phases with both thin and thick liquids. Patients with more severe mandibular hypoplasia showed more difficulties to form an appropriate bolus compared to patients who were less severely affected. This is the first study to document swallowing problems in patients with CFM. Difficulties were seen in both the oral and pharyngeal phases. We recommend routine screening for swallowing issues by a speech and language therapist in all patients with CFM and to obtain a VFS-study in patients with a type III mandible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 49% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 49% |
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 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,403,167
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#878
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,161
of 342,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 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 1,377 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 342,326 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.