↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
428 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009456.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela T Morgan, Pamela Dodrill, Elizabeth C Ward

Abstract

Oropharyngeal dysphagia encompasses problems with the oral preparatory phase of swallowing (chewing and preparing the food), oral phase (moving the food or fluid posteriorly through the oral cavity with the tongue into the back of the throat) and pharyngeal phase (swallowing the food or fluid and moving it through the pharynx to the oesophagus). Populations of children with neurological impairment who commonly experience dysphagia include, but are not limited to, those with acquired brain impairment (for example, cerebral palsy, traumatic brain injury, stroke), genetic syndromes (for example, Down syndrome, Rett syndrome) and degenerative conditions (for example, myotonic dystrophy).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 428 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 422 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 91 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 13%
Student > Bachelor 50 12%
Researcher 50 12%
Other 27 6%
Other 85 20%
Unknown 71 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 15%
Psychology 26 6%
Social Sciences 22 5%
Neuroscience 15 4%
Other 52 12%
Unknown 102 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,999,043
of 13,043,924 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,730
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,396
of 141,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,043,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 141,341 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.