↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
706 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with neurological impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009456.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela T Morgan, Pamela Dodrill, Elizabeth C Ward

Abstract

Oropharyngeal dysphagia encompasses problems with the oral preparatory phase of swallowing (chewing and preparing the food), oral phase (moving the food or fluid posteriorly through the oral cavity with the tongue into the back of the throat) and pharyngeal phase (swallowing the food or fluid and moving it through the pharynx to the oesophagus). Populations of children with neurological impairment who commonly experience dysphagia include, but are not limited to, those with acquired brain impairment (for example, cerebral palsy, traumatic brain injury, stroke), genetic syndromes (for example, Down syndrome, Rett syndrome) and degenerative conditions (for example, myotonic dystrophy).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 706 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 700 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 115 16%
Student > Bachelor 72 10%
Researcher 66 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 9%
Other 41 6%
Other 137 19%
Unknown 210 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 205 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 99 14%
Psychology 37 5%
Social Sciences 23 3%
Neuroscience 20 3%
Other 83 12%
Unknown 239 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,717,998
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,317
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,658
of 194,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 194,299 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 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 52% of its contemporaries.