↓ Skip to main content

Impaired Tongue Function as an Indicator of Laryngeal Aspiration in Adults with Acquired Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, May 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Impaired Tongue Function as an Indicator of Laryngeal Aspiration in Adults with Acquired Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review
Published in
Dysphagia, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00455-018-9902-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Checklin, Tania Pizzari

Abstract

Tongue function assessment typically forms part of a clinical bedside swallowing evaluation (CBSE). The predictive value of lingual function for calculating aspiration risk in isolation is not known. The aim of this systematic review was to collate current evidence on the utility of assessing lingual deficits for predicting aspiration. Health databases Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SpeechBITE, AMED and Embase were searched from inception to November 2016. Studies were included if there was a comparison between a clinical lingual assessment (index test) and aspiration on instrumental assessments (reference test) in adults who had been diagnosed with oropharyngeal dysphagia. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and odds ratios were extracted or calculated where possible. A best evidence synthesis and receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis for sensitivity and specificity were conducted. Twelve studies were included, of which only one had a low risk of bias. The ROC curve, predictive values and likelihood ratios did not show a relationship between lingual function and aspiration. Best evidence synthesis showed moderate evidence that when motility and strength are jointly assessed, they are not associated with aspiration. Other lingual assessment variables indicated either limited or conflicting evidence of an association. There is currently no evidence to indicate that there is a predictive relationship between lingual deficits as part of a CBSE and aspiration in adults with acquired oropharyngeal dysphagia. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research are made.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Psychology 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,402,375
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#157
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,291
of 328,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 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 1,327 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 328,945 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 65% of its contemporaries.