↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Saliva on the Viscosity of Thickened Drinks

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, March 2011
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
The Effect of Saliva on the Viscosity of Thickened Drinks
Published in
Dysphagia, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00455-011-9330-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Hanson, Mark T. O’Leary, Christina H. Smith

Abstract

Powdered thickeners are used to modify drink consistency in the clinical management of dysphagia. These thickeners are composed of primarily modified maize starch; some varieties also incorporate powdered gums. Amylase is a digestive enzyme found in saliva that initiates the breakdown of starch. To determine the significance of this process in dysphagia management, we measured the effects of human saliva on the viscosity of thickened drinks. Two thickeners were studied: one comprising modified maize starch alone and one that included additional gums. These were added to drinks with neutral and acidic pH: water and orange juice. Two clinical scenarios were simulated: (1) the effect of saliva on fluid as it is swallowed and (2) the effect when saliva enters a cup and contaminates a drink. Saliva was found to reduce the viscosity of water thickened with maize starch in both scenarios: (1) 90% reduction after 10 s and (2) almost 100% reduction in viscosity after 20 min. The thickener composed of gums and maize starch showed a significant reduction but retained a level of thickening. In contrast, thickened orange juice (pH 3.8) was not observed to undergo any measurable reduction in viscosity under the action of saliva.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Engineering 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,277,889
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#300
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,470
of 111,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#1
of 7 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 82nd 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 77% 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 111,071 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them