| Title |
The Feasibility and Outcome of Oro-esophageal Tube Feeding in Patients with Various Etiologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-015-9644-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juyong Kim, Han Gil Seo, Goo Joo Lee, Tai Ryoon Han, Byung-Mo Oh |
| Abstract |
The oro-esophageal tube (OE tube) is widely used in dysphagia patients although its success rate for transition to oral feeding is reported only in stroke patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcome of OE tube feeding for patients with dysphagia resulting from various etiologies. The authors reviewed the medical records of 1995 dysphagic patients that had undergone videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) in a tertiary hospital from April 2002 through December 2009. Of these, 97 patients were recommended to use OE tube feeding based on the VFSS findings. Follow-up VFSS were performed on 54 patients. The mean duration of tube use at the time of follow-up VFSS was 274 days. We evaluated clinical information including age, sex, diet, etiology of dysphagia, location of lesions, duration of intervention, and complications of OE tube feeding. Initially, all 54 patients were fed using the OE tube. After their last follow-up evaluation, 19 patients (35.2 %) resumed full oral feeding without the OE tube, 12 patients (22.2 %) used partial OE tube feeding, and 23 patients (42.6 %) continued OE tube feeding only. Full oral feeding was achieved again most often in brain tumor, stroke, and head and neck cancer patients (54.5, 27.3, and 20.0 %, respectively). Mild adverse events, such as blood-tinged sputum, nausea, dyspepsia, and regurgitation of food, were reported in 4 patients. OE tube feeding is a feasible feeding method also in conditions other than stroke such as brain tumors, and head and neck cancers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,519,968
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,042
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,539
of 266,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 266,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.