↓ Skip to main content

Comparison between clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluation of swallowing in children with suspected dysphagia

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Comparison between clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluation of swallowing in children with suspected dysphagia
Published in
CoDAS, April 2015
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20152014149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lenice de Fatima da Silva-Munhoz, Karina Elena Bernardis Bühler, Suelly Cecilia Olivan Limongi

Abstract

To verify the accuracy of clinical evaluation compared with videofluoroscopic swallowing studies in the detection of isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration in children with suspected dysphagia; to identify clinical signs and symptoms associated with isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration; and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical signs and symptoms identified. Retrospective analysis of data from clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluations carried out in 55 children from 1 month to 7 years and 11 months old. For clinical assessment, the Protocol for Clinical Assessment of Pediatric Dysphagia was used. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of clinical evaluation were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the Fisher's exact and χ2 tests were used. Clinical evaluation showed, in general, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 32%. For isolated laryngeal penetration, clinical evaluation showed a sensitivity of 88%. For laryngeal aspiration, clinical evaluation showed a sensitivity of 86%. However, the specificity values were low for both alterations. There was no association between clinical evaluation and videofluoroscopic findings. Choking was the only clinical sign associated with isolated laryngeal penetration thin fluid and showed a sensitivity of 53% and a specificity of 77%. Clinical evaluation was sensible to detect isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration in children with suspected dysphagia. However, it showed a low specificity. Choking was the only clinical sign associated with isolated laryngeal penetration of thin fluid. More prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings in this population.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 26%
Psychology 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 29%

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 28 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,777,135
of 8,972,546 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#76
of 107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,384
of 309,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,972,546 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 107 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. 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 309,333 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 12 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.