↓ Skip to main content

High-Resolution Manometry of Pharyngeal Swallow Pressure Events Associated with Effortful Swallow and the Mendelsohn Maneuver

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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
High-Resolution Manometry of Pharyngeal Swallow Pressure Events Associated with Effortful Swallow and the Mendelsohn Maneuver
Published in
Dysphagia, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00455-011-9385-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew R. Hoffman, Jason D. Mielens, Michelle R. Ciucci, Corinne A. Jones, Jack J. Jiang, Timothy M. McCulloch

Abstract

Effortful swallow and the Mendelsohn maneuver are two common strategies to improve disordered swallowing. We used high-resolution manometry (HRM) to quantify the effects of these maneuvers on pressure and timing characteristics. Fourteen normal subjects swallowed multiple, 5-ml water boluses using three techniques: normal swallow, effortful swallow, and the Mendelsohn maneuver. Maximum pressure, rate, duration, area integral, and line integral were determined for the velopharynx and tongue base. Minimum pressure, duration of pressure-related change, duration of nadir pressure, maximum preopening and postclosure pressure, area integral, and line integral were recorded for the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). Area and line integrals of the velopharyngeal pressure curve significantly increased with the Mendelsohn maneuver; the line integral increased with the effortful swallow. Preopening UES pressure decreased significantly for the Mendelsohn, while postclosure pressure tended to increase insignificantly for both maneuvers. UES area and line integrals as well as nadir UES pressure duration increased with both maneuvers. Maneuver-dependent changes were observed primarily at the velopharynx and UES. These regions are critical to safe swallowing, as the velopharynx provides positive pressure at the bolus tail while the UES allows a bolus to enter the esophagus without risk of regurgitation. Integrals were more responsive than maximum pressure or duration and should be investigated further.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 18%
Engineering 5 4%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Linguistics 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 25 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,711,256
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#901
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,686
of 249,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 249,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.