↓ Skip to main content

Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Evaluation Tools in Adults with Solid Malignancies Outside the Head and Neck and Upper GI Tract: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Evaluation Tools in Adults with Solid Malignancies Outside the Head and Neck and Upper GI Tract: A Systematic Review
Published in
Dysphagia, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00455-018-9892-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ciarán Kenny, Órla Gilheaney, Declan Walsh, Julie Regan

Abstract

Dysphagia is often associated with head and neck and upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers. Evidence suggests that those with solid malignancies in other primary sites may also have swallowing difficulties. Timely and accurate identification of dysphagia is important given the impact it has on hydration, medical treatment, nutrition, prognosis, and quality of life. A systematic review was conducted to identify swallow screening, evaluation, and quality of life tools for those with solid malignancies outside the head and neck and upper GI tract. Ten electronic databases, one journal and two published conference proceedings were searched. Following deduplication, 7435 studies were examined for relevance. No tools were validated solely in this cancer population, though some included this group in larger cohorts. Comments are provided on the diagnostic properties and applicability of these tools. In the absence of appropriate diagnostic instruments, the exact prevalence of dysphagia and its impact on clinical and psychosocial well-being remain unknown. Accurate and adequate measurement of therapeutic intervention is also compromised. This review establishes the need for validated dysphagia evaluation tools for this clinical population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 31 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Decision Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 31 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,168,931
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#128
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,335
of 330,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 330,892 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.