| Title |
Esophageal Involvement in Multiple System Atrophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-015-9641-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroshige Taniguchi, Hideaki Nakayama, Kazuhiro Hori, Masatoyo Nishizawa, Makoto Inoue, Takayoshi Shimohata |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of esophageal involvement and its impact on clinical manifestations in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA) remains unknown. We recruited 16 consecutive patients with dysphagia associated with MSA (MSA group) and 16 consecutive patients with dysphagia associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS group). We assessed the presence or absence of food stagnation within the esophagus using videofluorography. Food stagnation within the esophagus was observed in 16 patients (100 %; 7 severe, 9 mild) in the MSA group and in 4 patients (25 %; 4 mild) in the ALS group (P < 0.001). Follow-up videofluorography revealed that food stagnation in patients with MSA could exacerbate during the disease course. Patients with MSA and severe food stagnation showed a wide range of intraesophageal stasis by videofluorography. Among the 16 patients in the MSA group, 4 developed aspiration pneumonia and 1 died of suffocation associated with food regurgitation during continuous positive airway pressure therapy. In conclusion, food stagnation within the esophagus occurs more frequently in MSA patients with dysphagia than in ALS patients with dysphagia. Because food stagnation can cause serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia and suffocation, patients with MSA should be evaluated by videofluorography, especially those with stagnation in the esophageal phase. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 July 2015.
All research outputs
#21,178,329
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,254
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,287
of 265,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 265,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.