↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing the Flow of Thickened Barium and Non-barium Liquid Recipes Using the IDDSI Flow Test

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, June 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Characterizing the Flow of Thickened Barium and Non-barium Liquid Recipes Using the IDDSI Flow Test
Published in
Dysphagia, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00455-018-9915-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carly E. A. Barbon, Catriona M. Steele

Abstract

The use of thickened liquids for dysphagia management has become wide-spread. Videofluoroscopy is commonly used to determine dysphagia severity and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, including texture modification, but this requires the use of radio-opaque contrast media. In order for the results of a videofluoroscopy to have validity with respect to confirming swallowing safety and efficiency on different liquid consistencies, it is important to understand the flow characteristics of the contrast media used and how the flow of these stimuli compares to the flow of liquids that are provided outside the assessment context. In this study, we explored the flow characteristics of 20% w/v barium and non-barium stimuli prepared using starch and gum thickeners to reach the slightly, mildly and moderately thick liquid categories defined by the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI). Our goal was to identify recipes that would produce stimuli with stable flow properties over a 3 h time frame post mixing. Thickener concentration was titrated to achieve matching flow (i.e., IDDSI Flow Test results within a 1 ml range) across the four stimulus types (non-barium starch, non-barium gum, barium starch, barium gum) within each IDDSI level. The combination of barium and thickeners resulted in further thickening, particularly with starch-based thickening agents. A probe of the influence of refrigeration showed no difference in flow measures between chilled and room temperature stimuli over a 3-h time frame. Overall, recipes with stable flow over three hours were identified for all barium and non-barium liquids tested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 32 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 35 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,030,944
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#199
of 1,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,745
of 334,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,360 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 85% 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 334,546 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 82% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.