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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of Chin-tuck Maneuver to Facilitate Swallowing in Neurologic Dysphagia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0035-1564721 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana Saconato, Brasilia Chiari, Henrique Lederman, Maria Gonçalves |
| Abstract |
Introduction The chin-tuck maneuver is the most frequently employed postural maneuver in the treatment of neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia caused by encephalic vascular strokes and degenerative diseases. Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of this maneuver in patients with neurogenic dysphagia and factors that could interfere in it. Methods In this retrospective cohort, we analyzed the medical files and videofluoroscopy exams of 35 patients (19 male - 54% and 16 female - 46%; age range between 20 and 89 years old; mean = 69 years). Results The results suggest that the effectiveness of chin-tuck maneuver is related to the overall degree of dysphagia: the more severe the dysphagia, the less effective the maneuver. Conclusion Chin-tuck maneuver should benefit dysphagic patients with delay in the swallowing trigger, reduced laryngeal elevation, and difficulties to swallow liquids, but is not the best compensatory strategy for patients with severe dysphagia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| Australia | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 50 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 13% |
| Linguistics | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 9 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 57 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,969,197
of 24,510,033 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#38
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,569
of 288,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,510,033 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 288,612 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 99% of its contemporaries.