↓ Skip to main content

Bilateral vocal fold immobility: a 13 year review of etiologies, management and the utility of the empey index

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Bilateral vocal fold immobility: a 13 year review of etiologies, management and the utility of the empey index
Published in
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40463-015-0080-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria K. Brake, Jennifer Anderson

Abstract

Bilateral vocal fold immobility (BVFI) is a rare diagnosis causing dyspnea, dysphonia and dysphagia. Management depends on respiratory performance, airway patency, vocal ability, and quality-of-life priorities. The authors review the presentation, management and outcome in patients diagnosed with BVFI. The utility and efficacy of the Empey index (EI) and the Expiratory Disproportion Index (EDI) are evaluated as an objective monitoring tools for BVFI patients. A 13-year retrospective review was performed of BVFI patients at a tertiary referral centre at St. Michael's Hospital at the University of Toronto. Forty-eight patients were included; 46 presented with airway obstructive symptoms. Tracheotomy was required for airway management in 40 % of patients throughout the course of their treatment, which was reduced to 19 % at the end of treatment. Twenty-one patients underwent endoscopic arytenoidectomy/cordotomy. Non-operative management included home continuous positive airway pressure devices. Pulmonary function testing was carried out in 29 patients. Only a portion of the BVFI patients met the defined obstruction criteria (45 % EI and 52 % EDI). Seven patients had complete pre- and post-operative PFTs for comparison and all seven had ratios that significantly improved post-operatively which appeared to correlate clinically. The EI and EDI have limited use in evaluating patients with who have variable upper airway obstruction, but may be helpful in monitoring changes in patients' airway status.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,011,936
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#400
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,911
of 278,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 278,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.