↓ Skip to main content

Vocal fold paresis: Medical specialists’ opinions on standard diagnostics and laryngeal findings

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Vocal fold paresis: Medical specialists’ opinions on standard diagnostics and laryngeal findings
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00405-018-5102-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerd Fabian Volk, Sebastian Themel, Markus Gugatschka, Claus Pototschnig, Christian Sittel, Andreas H. Müller, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius, For the Working Group on Laryngology and Tracheal Diseases of the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and the Working Group on Neurolaryngology of the European Laryngological Society (ELS)

Abstract

There is still no clear consensus on the diagnostic value of specific laryngeal findings in patients with suspected vocal fold paresis (VFP). The aim of the study was to establish expert opinion on criteria for the diagnosis of VFP in Europe. A cross-sectional survey using the questionnaire introduced by Wu and Sulica for US American experts was addressed to laryngeal experts in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and in a second survey wave to members of the European Laryngological Society. 100 respondents returned survey 1 (response rate 47.2%). 26% worked at a university department. 28% regularly used laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). A pathologic test results in LEMG was considered to have the strongest positive predictive value for VFP (79 ± 23%), followed by a decreased vocal fold abduction (70 ± 29%), decreased vocal fold adduction (61 ± 34%), and atrophy of the hemilarynx (61 ± 31%). The multivariate analysis showed the predictive value of LEMG was estimated lower by respondents from non-university hospital (β = - 16.33; confidence interval (CI) = - 25.63 to - 7.02; p = 0.001) and higher in hospitals with higher frequency of VFP patients per months (β = 1.57; CI = - 0.98 to 2.16; p < 0.0001). 30 ELS members returned survey 2 (response rate, 8.4%). Their answers were not significantly different to survey 1. The laryngology experts in Europe rely on LEMG for diagnosis of VFP like the US American experts, but paradoxically only a minority uses LEMG frequently. Next to LEMG, motion abnormities were considered to have the best predictive value for the diagnosis of VFP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,423,597
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,016
of 3,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,679
of 334,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 334,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 69% of its contemporaries.