↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Speech Therapy in Patients Who Underwent Laryngeal Microsurgery due to Phonotraumatic Lesions and Lesions Unrelated to Phonotrauma

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
The Role of Speech Therapy in Patients Who Underwent Laryngeal Microsurgery due to Phonotraumatic Lesions and Lesions Unrelated to Phonotrauma
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1364204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Macedo, Evaldo Macedo, Osvaldo Malafaia, Guilherme Catani, Jorge Ido, Henrique Stahlke

Abstract

Introduction The role of the speech-language pathology in the multiprofessional team dealing with laryngology and the voice has been recognized for a long time. Scientific studies in this field recommend therapies for laryngeal microsurgeries; few of the studies, however, effectively evaluate the result of postoperative speech therapy. Objective To compare speech therapy evaluation and treatment among patients with phonotraumatic lesions and patients with lesions unrelated to phonotrauma who underwent laryngeal microsurgery. Methods This study was performed at IPO Hospital (Paranaense Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil) between February 2010 and February 2011. Of 254 patients who underwent laryngeal microsurgery, 208 patients were included in the study and divided in two groups: group A with phonotraumatic lesions (n = 131) and group B with lesions unrelated to phonotrauma (n = 77). The number of sessions and the functional result after speech therapy were evaluated. Results The number of postoperative phonotherapy sessions after microsurgery was up to 10 sessions in 89.31% and 87.71% for groups A and B, respectively. Phonotherapy treatment showed a better functional evolution in group A (92.37%). Conclusion A significant difference was observed only in functional evolution, which was better in the group with phonotraumatic lesions (p < 0.0001).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Unknown 4 57%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Engineering 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,245,139
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,728
of 221,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#16
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 221,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.