↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
23 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.
Article details
Title
Reduzindo o gap entre a ciência e a clínica: lições da academia e da prática profissional – parte B: técnicas tradicionais de terapia vocal e técnicas modernas de eletroestimulação e fotobiomodulação aplicadas à reabilitação vocal
Published in
CoDAS, January 2022
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20212021241pt
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This text is the continuation of the XVIII SBFa Congress publication. In part "A" we presented the analyses on clinical vocal evaluation. Part "B" focuses on vocal rehabilitation: 4. Traditional techniques of vocal therapy; 5. Modern techniques of electrostimulation and photobiomodulation applied to vocal rehabilitation. The numerous studies on the various programs, methods, and techniques of traditional rehabilitation techniques, and many with high quality of evidence, allow us to consider such procedures relatively well described, safe, and with known effects, accounting for the treatment of various vocal disorders. The scientific evidence with traditional techniques is recognized worldwide. New fronts of evolution, with electrostimulation or photobiomodulation used to handle voice problems, seem to be promising as coadjutant approaches. There are more studies on electrostimulation in vocal rehabilitation than with photobiomodulation; however, scientific evidence for these two modern techniques is still limited. Knowledge and caution are required for the application of either technique.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 13%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 61%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unknown 14 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 June 2025.
All research outputs
#11,155,215
of 32,882,137 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#65
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,599
of 559,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#6
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,882,137 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 559,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.