↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Swallowing in Infants with Congenital Heart Defect

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Evaluation of Swallowing in Infants with Congenital Heart Defect
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1384687
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Pereira, Cora Firpo, Marisa Gasparin, Adriane Teixeira, Silvia Dornelles, Tzvi Bacaltchuk, Deborah Levy

Abstract

Introduction Surgical repair of congenital heart disease in the first years of life compromises the coordination of the suction, breathing, and swallowing functions. Objective To describe the alterations in swallowing found in infants with congenital heart defect during their hospitalization. Methods Prospective, cross-sectional study in a reference hospital for heart disease. The sample consisted of 19 postsurgical patients who underwent an evaluation of swallowing. The infants included were younger than 7 months and had a diagnosis of congenital heart defect and suspected swallowing difficulties. Results Of the 19 infants with congenital heart defect, the median age was 3.2 months. A significant association was found between suction rhythm and dysphagia (p = 0.036) and between oral-motor oral feeding readiness and dysphagia (p = 0.014). Conclusions The data suggest that dysphagia often occurs after surgery in infants with congenital heart defect. Infants with congenital heart defect had very similar behavior to preterm infants in terms of oral feeding readiness.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Unspecified 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 27%
Unspecified 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 23 31%

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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#19,105,601
of 21,468,133 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#254
of 254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,540
of 244,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,468,133 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 254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.7. 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 244,636 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 21 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.