↓ Skip to main content

Influence of the breathing pattern on the learning process: a systematic review of literature

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 726)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Influence of the breathing pattern on the learning process: a systematic review of literature
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.08.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genef Caroline Andrade Ribeiro, Isadora Diniz dos Santos, Ana Claudia Nascimento Santos, Luiz Renato Paranhos, Carla Patrícia Hernandez Alves Ribeiro César

Abstract

Mouth breathing leads to negative consequences on quality of life, especially in school-age children. To determine whether the breathing pattern influences children's learning process. This systematic review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) instructions, with no restrictions regarding the year of publication and language, created based on the clinical question formulation according to the Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention/Indicator, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) strategy: "Is the mouth-breathing child more likely to have learning disabilities when compared to nasal breathers?" in the SciELO, PubMed, LILACS, and Scopus electronic databases. Google Scholar was used to search the gray literature. The keywords "learning," "mouth breathing," and their equivalent terms in Portuguese were used in an integrated manner. The studies included in the review were observational, conducted with schoolchildren aged 7-11 years. Afterwards, the studies were evaluated regarding their methodological quality. The research was performed by two eligible reviewers. A total of 357 records were obtained, of which 43 records were duplicate. After applying the eligibility criteria, ten articles were included in the research scope. Half of the studies used a control group and otorhinolaryngological assessment, whereas a minority used validated (20%) and sample calculation protocols (10%). The evaluation procedures were varied. Overall, 80% of the articles showed a higher incidence of learning disabilities among mouth breathers. This systematic review has shown that mouth breathers are more likely to have learning difficulties than nasal breathers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Linguistics 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 11 June 2023.
All research outputs
#885,366
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#10
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,362
of 400,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 400,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.