↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Respiratory Muscle Strength in Mouth Breathers: Clinical Evidences

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Evaluation of Respiratory Muscle Strength in Mouth Breathers: Clinical Evidences
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2013
DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1351682
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renata Andrade da Cunha, Daniele Andrade da Cunha, Roberta Borba Assis, Luciana Ângelo Bezerra, Hilton Justino da Silva

Abstract

Introduction The child who chronically breathes through the mouth may develop a weakness of the respiratory muscles. Researchers and clinical are seeking for methods of instrumental evaluation to gather complementary data to clinical evaluations. With this in mind, it is important to evaluate breathing muscles in the child with Mouth Breathing. Objective To develop a review to investigate studies that used evaluation methods of respiratory muscle strength in mouth breathers. Data Synthesis  The authors were unanimous in relation to manovacuometry method as a way to evaluate respiratory pressures in Mouth Breathing children. Two of them performed with an analog manovacuometer and the other one, digital. The studies were not evaluated with regard to the method efficacy neither the used instruments. Conclusion There are few studies evaluating respiratory muscle strength in Mouth Breathing people through manovacuometry and the low methodological rigor of the analyzed studies hindered a reliable result to support or refuse the use of this technique.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Unspecified 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 40%
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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,259,845
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,756
of 215,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#23
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 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 215,499 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 84 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.