↓ Skip to main content

Relationship Between Tongue Base Region Pressures and Vallecular Clearance

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Relationship Between Tongue Base Region Pressures and Vallecular Clearance
Published in
Dysphagia, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00455-015-9688-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly A. Knigge, Susan Thibeault

Abstract

Tongue base pressures have been thought to provide primary bolus clearance through the pharynx during swallowing. The relationship between bolus driving pressures and residue remaining in the valleculae after the swallow has not been defined. Thirty-seven dysphagic patients who were evaluated with both videofluoroscopy (VFSS) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) were identified within the University of Wisconsin Voice and Swallowing Outcomes database. Patients were categorized according to binary ratings of presence or absence of vallecular stasis as well as incomplete or complete tongue retraction on VFSS. Tongue base region pressures measured with HRM during saline swallows of 1 and 10 ml volumes were compared to ratings of vallecular stasis or tongue base retraction. No significant difference could be identified among mean peak HRM pressures when compared to presence or absence of vallecular stasis (1 ml saline: p = .1886; 10 ml saline: p = .7354). When categorized according to complete or incomplete tongue retraction, mean peak HRM pressures were significantly greater in the complete tongue retraction group as compared to incomplete tongue retraction (1 ml saline: p = .0223; 10 ml saline: p = .0100). Findings suggest there are multiple factors that lead to reduced vallecular clearance. In the absence of HRM measures, judging complete or incomplete tongue retraction on VFSS may be a more valid gauge of tongue base region pressures than vallecular clearance when planning dysphagia treatment.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 27%
Psychology 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#21,178,329
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,254
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#336,157
of 399,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#17
of 19 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 399,565 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 19 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.