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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of Carbonated Beverages on Pharyngeal Swallowing in Young Individuals and Elderly Inpatients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-013-9493-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Motoyoshi Morishita, Sanae Mori, Shota Yamagami, Masatoshi Mizutani |
| Abstract |
Gustatory and chemical stimulations of the oral cavity and pharyngeal mucosa by carbonated water improve pharyngeal swallowing. We compared changes in pharyngeal swallowing and sensory aspects induced by a carbonated beverage preferred by Japanese with those induced by carbonated water, a sports drink, and tap water in healthy young subjects and elderly inpatients with no swallowing problems. The duration of laryngeal elevation (DOLE) for swallowing the carbonated beverage and water in the second session was shorter compared to that for water in the first session in the elderly subjects. The DOLE and the duration of suprahyoid muscle activity for swallowing were longer in the elderly subjects than in the young subjects for all beverages. Beverages that the subjects subjectively felt were easy to swallow were the sports drink and carbonated beverage, whereas they stated that carbonated water was less easy to swallow. In the elderly subjects, swallowing ability latently decreased, even though they had no problem swallowing in their daily lives, and it was assumed that the carbonated beverage improved pharyngeal swallowing. In addition, the carbonated beverage also influenced the subsequent swallowing of water, showing a persistent effect. It was suggested that carbonated beverages are easy to swallow and effective for improving pharyngeal swallowing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 16 March 2024.
All research outputs
#652,846
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#11
of 1,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,533
of 225,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 225,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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