↓ Skip to main content

Voluntary Cough Airflow Differentiates Safe Versus Unsafe Swallowing in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Voluntary Cough Airflow Differentiates Safe Versus Unsafe Swallowing in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Published in
Dysphagia, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00455-015-9687-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily K. Plowman, Stephanie A. Watts, Raele Robison, Lauren Tabor, Charles Dion, Joy Gaziano, Tuan Vu, Clifton Gooch

Abstract

Dysphagia and aspiration are prevalent in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and contribute to malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia, and death. Early detection of at risk individuals is critical to ensure maintenance of safe oral intake and optimal pulmonary function. We therefore aimed to determine the discriminant ability of voluntary cough airflow measures in detecting penetration/aspiration status in ALS patients. Seventy individuals with ALS (El-Escorial criteria) completed voluntary cough spirometry testing and underwent a standardized videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation (VFSE). A rater blinded to aspiration status derived six objective measures of voluntary cough airflow and evaluated airway safety using the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS). A between groups ANOVA (safe vs. unsafe swallowers) was conducted and sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) and likelihood ratios were calculated. VFSE analysis revealed 24 penetrator/aspirators (PAS ≥3) and 46 non-penetrator/aspirators (PAS ≤2). Cough volume acceleration (CVA), peak expiratory flow rise time (PEFRT), and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) were significantly different between airway safety groups (p < 0.05) and demonstrated significant discriminant ability to detect the presence of penetration/aspiration with AUC values of: 0.85, 0.81, and 0.78, respectively. CVA <45.28 L/s/s, PEFR <3.97 L/s, and PEFRT >76 ms had sensitivities of 91.3, 82.6, and 73.9 %, respectively, and specificities of 82.2, 73.9, and 78.3 % for identifying ALS penetrator/aspirators. Voluntary cough airflow measures identified ALS patients at risk for penetration/aspiration and may be a valuable screening tool with high clinical utility.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 41 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 21%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 47 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,519,968
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,042
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,824
of 400,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#15
of 19 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 400,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.