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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Aspiration Pneumonia in Children with Cerebral Palsy after Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0035-1566093 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hellen Nataly Correia Lagos-Guimarães, Hélio Afonso Ghizoni Teive, Adriane Celli, Rosane Sampaio Santos, Edna Marcia da Silva Abdulmassih, Gisela Carmona Hirata, Liliane Friedrich Gallinea |
| Abstract |
Introduction Dysphagia is a common symptom in children with cerebral palsy, either in oral or pharyngeal phases. Children who face such difficulties tend to show health problems such as food aspiration, malnutrition and respiratory infections. Videofluoroscopic swallowing study is the most recommended for these cases, as it reveals the real situation during swallowing. Objective The study aimed to verify the occurrence of aspiration pneumonia in children with cerebral palsy after videofluoroscopy. Methods The population for this prospective cross-sectional study involved 103 children with cerebral palsy, referred for videofluoroscopic who had returned for medical examination after a week to search for signs and symptoms of pneumonia. Results The study involved 46 girls (44.66%) and 57 boys (55.34%), aged between 0 and 14 years of age. Of the total, 84 (81.5%) had dysphagia, of which 24 (23.3%) were severe, 8 (7.7%) were moderate and 52 (50.4%) were mild dysphagia. None of the children presented aspiration pneumonia or infectious complications during the course of videofluoroscopy or after the procedure. Conclusion In the population studied, the authors found no cases of aspiration pneumonia, even with tracheal aspiration present in 32 (31.07%) cases. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 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 13 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,413,129
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,868
of 283,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 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 646 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 283,568 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 14 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.