| Title |
Outcome of Rehabilitation and Swallowing Therapy after Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Dysphagia Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-016-9717-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ezekiel Wong Toh Yoon, Jun Hirao, Naoko Minoda |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of rehabilitation (with swallowing therapy) after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in patients with neurogenic dysphagia. Forty-seven patients (29 males and 18 females) who were transferred to the rehabilitation ward of our hospital after receiving PEG tube placements during a 5-year period were enrolled in this study. Patients' demographic data, comorbidities, nutritional statuses, and laboratory biomarkers before the PEG procedure were collected. Rehabilitation (with swallowing therapy) outcomes such as changes in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and dysphagia grade (using Fujishima's classification) were evaluated. Significant improvements in FIM scores and dysphagia grades after rehabilitation therapy were observed. Twenty-seven patients (57.4 %) were discharged with some oral intake and 10 patients (21.3%) were discharged PEG-free (defined as the PEG tube not being used or removed). Factors associated with being discharged with some oral intake were increase in FIM score (adjusted OR 1.10, 95 % CI 1.02-1.19) and higher baseline dysphagia grade (adjusted OR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.04-3.39). Factors associated with being discharged PEG-free were longer rehabilitation period (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01-1.04), absence of respiratory disorders (OR 0.12, 95 % CI 0.03-0.35), and increase in FIM score (OR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.08-1.28). Changes in dysphagia grade were significantly correlated with changes in FIM score (r (2) = 0.46, p < 0.0001), indicating that improvement of FIM scores through general rehabilitation therapy may play an important role in the treatment of dysphagia. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,236,357
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,157
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,750
of 359,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 359,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.