↓ Skip to main content

Electrical pharyngeal stimulation for dysphagia treatment in tracheotomized stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, June 2015
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
Title
Electrical pharyngeal stimulation for dysphagia treatment in tracheotomized stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-3897-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja Suntrup, Thomas Marian, Jens Burchard Schröder, Inga Suttrup, Paul Muhle, Stephan Oelenberg, Christina Hamacher, Jens Minnerup, Tobias Warnecke, Rainer Dziewas

Abstract

Treatment of post-stroke dysphagia is notoriously difficult with different neurostimulation strategies having been employed with a variable degree of success. Recently, electrical pharyngeal stimulation (EPS) has been shown to improve swallowing function and in particular decrease airway aspiration in acute stroke. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess EPS effectiveness on swallowing function in severely dysphagic tracheotomized patients. All consecutive stroke patients successfully weaned from the respirator but with severe dysphagia precluding decannulation were screened for eligibility. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either EPS (N = 20) or sham stimulation (N = 10) over three consecutive days. Primary endpoint was ability to decannulate the patient. Swallowing function was assessed using fiberoptic endoscopy. Patients having received sham stimulation were offered EPS treatment during unblinded follow-up if required. Investigators were blinded to the patient's study group allocation. Both groups were well matched for age, stroke severity, and lesion location. Decannulation after study intervention was possible in 75 % of patients of the treatment group and in 20 % of patients of the sham group (p < 0.01). Secondary outcome parameters did not differ. No adverse events occurred. In this pilot study, EPS enhanced remission of dysphagia as assessed with fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), thereby enabling decannulation in 75 % of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 12%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Other 15 8%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 58 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Linguistics 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 72 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,160,378
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,076
of 5,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,260
of 279,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#8
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 279,323 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.