↓ Skip to main content

Validity of Conducting Clinical Dysphagia Assessments for Patients with Normal to Mild Cognitive Impairment via Telerehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of Conducting Clinical Dysphagia Assessments for Patients with Normal to Mild Cognitive Impairment via Telerehabilitation
Published in
Dysphagia, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00455-011-9390-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth C. Ward, Shobha Sharma, Clare Burns, Deborah Theodoros, Trevor Russell

Abstract

To assess the validity of conducting clinical dysphagia assessments via telerehabilitation, 40 individuals with dysphagia from various etiologies were assessed simultaneously by a face-to-face speech-language pathologist (FTF-SLP) and a telerehabilitation SLP (T-SLP) via an Internet-based videoconferencing telerehabilitation system. Dysphagia status was assessed using a Clinical Swallowing Examination (CSE) protocol, delivered via a specialized telerehabilitation videoconferencing system and involving the use of an assistant at the patient's end of the consultation to facilitate the assessment. Levels of agreement between the FTF-SLP and T-SLP revealed that the majority of parameters reached set levels of clinically acceptable levels of agreement. Specifically, agreement between the T-SLP and FTF-SLP ratings for the oral, oromotor, and laryngeal function tasks revealed levels of exact agreement ranging from 75 to 100% (kappa = 0.36-1.0), while the parameters relating to food and fluid trials ranged in exact agreement from 79 to 100% (kappa = 0.61-1.0). Across the parameters related to aspiration risk and clinical management, exact agreement ranged between 79 and 100% (kappa = 0.49-1.0). The data show that a CSE conducted via telerehabilitation can provide valid and reliable outcomes comparable to clinical decisions made in the FTF environment.

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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 40 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 17%
Psychology 21 11%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 49 26%
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 02 February 2012.
All research outputs
#14,900,673
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#993
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,116
of 250,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 250,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.