↓ Skip to main content

The feasibility of assessing swallowing physiology following prolonged intubation after cardiovascular surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2017
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
The feasibility of assessing swallowing physiology following prolonged intubation after cardiovascular surgery
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0199-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacey A. Skoretz, Terrence M. Yau, John T. Granton, Rosemary Martino

Abstract

Dysphagia following prolonged intubation after cardiovascular (CV) surgery is common occurring in 67% of patients; however, this population's swallowing physiology has never been prospectively evaluated using standardized methods. Hence, prior to conducting a larger study, our primary objective was to determine the feasibility of assessing swallowing physiology using instrumentation and validated interpretation methods in cardiovascular surgical patients following prolonged intubation. From July to October 2011, we approached adults undergoing CV surgery at our institution who were intubated > 48 h. Those with a tracheostomy were excluded. Videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFS) and nasendoscopy were completed within 48 h after extubation. Feasibility measurements included recruitment rate, patient participation, task completion durations, and the inter-rater reliability of VFS measures using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). VFSs were interpreted using perceptual rating tools (Modified Barium Swallow Measurement Tool for Swallow Impairment™© and Penetration Aspiration Scale) and objective displacement measurements (hyoid displacement and pharyngeal constriction ratio). Of the 39 patients intubated > 48 h, 16 met inclusion criteria with three enrolled and completing the VFS. All refused nasendoscopy. Across all VFSs, rating completion time ranged from 14.6 to 51.7 min per patient with ICCs for VFS scales ranging from 0.25 (95% CI - 0.10 to 0.59) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99). This study design was not feasible as recruitment was slow, few patients participated, and no patient agreed to all procedures. We discuss necessary methodological changes and lessons learned that would generalize to future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 21%
Linguistics 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 58%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,168,316
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#370
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,404
of 450,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 450,620 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 75% of its contemporaries.
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 done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.