↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review: Non-Instrumental Swallowing and Feeding Assessments in Pediatrics

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, November 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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
Title
Systematic Review: Non-Instrumental Swallowing and Feeding Assessments in Pediatrics
Published in
Dysphagia, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00455-015-9667-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dani-Ella Heckathorn, Renée Speyer, Jessica Taylor, Reinie Cordier

Abstract

There is a high incidence of parental reporting of abnormal swallowing and feeding function and the negative impacts thereof on children. As such there is a need for well validated assessments in the area of pediatric swallowing and feeding. While instrumental assessments are well validated, there is limited information available to guide the selection and use of non-instrumental assessments for swallowing and feeding function. The aim of this study was to identify and report on non-instrumental assessments available to clinicians for pediatric swallowing and/or feeding function in order to support clinical decision making. A systematic literature search was performed by two independent reviewers using Medline and Embase databases, to find non-instrumental assessments for pediatric swallowing and feeding function. Published assessments were also included in the study by searching well-known publishers and relevant feeding and swallowing textbooks. Assessments were summarized and evaluated according to respondent type, target populations, assessment design, domains of assessment and scoring. Thirty assessments were included in the final review. All assessments had either caregiver or clinician respondents. There was high variability in target populations, assessment designs and areas of assessment. Twenty-four of the 30 assessments did not provide instruction for scoring or interpreting scores. There is high variability among the many assessments available to clinicians in the area of feeding and swallowing function in pediatrics. There appears to be limited information available on the validity and reliability of these assessments. Thus, most assessments need to be used with caution. Further research is needed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the assessments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 15%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Researcher 13 6%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 56 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 25%
Psychology 8 4%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 64 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,695,568
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#328
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,435
of 391,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#7
of 16 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 80th 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 75% 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 391,676 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.