↓ Skip to main content

Risperidone-Induced Bulbar Palsy-like Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Risperidone-Induced Bulbar Palsy-like Syndrome
Published in
Dysphagia, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00455-010-9307-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Jonathon Sico, Huned Patwa

Abstract

There have been several case reports of risperidone-associated dysphagia. Risperidone-induced bulbar palsy-like syndrome has not been previously described. We report on a 58-year-old gentleman with prior history of schizophrenia and remote chlorpromazine use with no history of extrapyramidal symptoms who experienced acute onset of dysphagia and facial diplegia with hyperprolactinemia while being treated with risperidone. To date there have been five reported cases of dysphagia associated with risperidone, occurring by such mechanisms as isolated pharyngeal dysfunction from pharyngeal constrictor palsy and dystonia, drug-induced parkinsonism, and acute dystonic reaction. These cases were associated either with initiation or up-titration of risperidone, with complete resolution of dysphagia after medication discontinuation or dose change. Our patient developed dysphagia within 2 weeks of taking risperidone and completely resolved 1 month after the medication was stopped. Unlike other reported cases, our patient also experienced symptomatic hyperprolactinemia, another known side effect of risperidone. Physicians should also be aware that risperidone can be associated with oropharyngeal dysphagia secondary to an acute bulbar palsy-like syndrome that places patients at increased risk of aspiration events and its associated morbidity and mortality.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Psychology 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 22%
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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#16,568,071
of 25,166,481 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,048
of 1,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,880
of 104,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,166,481 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 1,367 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 104,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.