↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) in hereditary ataxia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Treatment for dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) in hereditary ataxia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010169.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam P Vogel, Megan J Keage, Kerstin Johansson, Ellika Schalling

Abstract

Hereditary ataxias are a heterogeneous group of disorders resulting in progressive inco-ordination. Swallowing impairment, also known as dysphagia, is a common and potentially life threatening sequel of disease progression. The incidence and nature of dysphagia in these conditions is largely unknown. The loss of an effective and safe swallow can dramatically affect the health and well-being of an individual. Remediation of difficulties of eating and drinking is an important goal in the clinical care of people with hereditary ataxia. To assess the effects of interventions for swallowing impairment (dysphagia) in people with hereditary ataxias. We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) on 14 September 2015. We also searched Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Dissertation Abstracts, and Trials Registries on 24 September 2015. We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatments for hereditary ataxia with placebo or no treatment. We only included studies measuring dysphagia. Three review authors (ES, KJ, MK) independently screened all titles and abstracts. In the event of any disagreement or uncertainty over the inclusion of a particular paper, the review authors planned to meet and reach consensus. We identified no RCTs from the 519 titles and abstracts screened. We excluded papers primarily for not including participants with a hereditary ataxia (that is, being focused on other neurological conditions), being theoretical reviews rather than intervention studies, or being neither randomised nor quasi-randomised trials.We identified five papers of various design that described treatment for dysphagia, or improvement to swallow as a by-product of treatment, in people with hereditary ataxia. None of these studies were RCTs or quasi-RCTs. There is an absence of any significant evidence supporting the use of any dysphagia intervention in hereditary ataxia. The lack of evidence highlights the critical need for well-controlled treatment trials in the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 97 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 20%
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 20 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,880,478
of 15,019,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,722
of 11,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,055
of 238,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#159
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,019,108 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 238,085 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.