↓ Skip to main content

Fatores relacionados à disfagia orofaríngea no pós-operatório de cirurgia cardíaca: revisão sistemática

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Fatores relacionados à disfagia orofaríngea no pós-operatório de cirurgia cardíaca: revisão sistemática
Published in
CoDAS, September 2016
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberta Weber Werle, Eduardo Matias dos Santos Steidl, Renata Mancopes

Abstract

To identify the main factors associated with oropharyngeal dysphagia following cardiac surgery through a systematic review of the literature. A bibliographic search was conducted in the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases using the following keywords: "cardiac surgery", "deglutition disorders", and "dysphagia". Articles published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish addressing oropharyngeal dysphagia following cardiac surgery were selected with no time limitation. Only studies available in full were included. First, articles were screened for title and abstract. Subsequently, they were submitted to full assessment by two blinded referees. The following data were extracted: authors, year of publication, study design, sample size, variables evaluated, and main results. The main factors related to oropharyngeal dysphagia in post-cardiac surgery were advanced age, presence of comorbidities and other diseases, intubation time, and surgical conditions. The studies showed high heterogeneity, demonstrating that individuals who undergo cardiac surgical procedures, especially the elderly, present several factors related to oropharyngeal dysphagia postoperatively, such as cardiopulmonary bypass, transesophageal echocardiography, associated comorbidities, development of postoperative sepsis, and previous heart conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 37%
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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,435,228
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#1
of 5 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,458
of 332,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.4. This one scored the same or higher as 4 of them.
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 332,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them