| Title |
Swallowing Changes in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-018-9911-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel W. Mulheren, Alba M. Azola, Stephanie Kwiatkowski, Eleni Karagiorgos, Ianessa Humbert, Jeffrey B. Palmer, Marlís González-Fernández |
| Abstract |
Older adults may evidence changes in swallowing physiology. Our goals were to identify dysphagia risk in community-dwelling older adults with no history of dysphagia, and to compare swallowing physiology and safety between older and younger adults. Thirty-two older adults with no history of dysphagia were prospectively recruited and completed the Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), two trials of a 3 oz. swallow screen, and videofluoroscopy (VFSS). Self-ratings of swallowing function were compared to published norms by paired t tests, and multivariate logistic regression models were generated to determine whether these ratings and VFSS analysis of swallowing function were associated with failure of one or both swallow screen trials. Archived VFSS of 33 younger adults were compared to older adults with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The DHI scores of older adults were higher than published non-dysphagic adults but lower than dysphagic adults. Older participants with greater Oral Residue scores were more likely to fail both swallow screen trials. Older adults received higher median MBSImP™© scores for select pharyngeal components than younger adults. The two age groups did not differ on Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores, and no aspiration was observed. Measures of swallowing in older individuals may reflect age-related sensory and motor changes in the context of functional swallowing and adequate airway protection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 17% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,087,421
of 24,149,630 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#423
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,634
of 333,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,149,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 333,108 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.