↓ 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
528 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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 528 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 522 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 106 20%
Student > Bachelor 59 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 11%
Researcher 54 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 6%
Other 110 21%
Unknown 106 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 173 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 86 16%
Psychology 32 6%
Social Sciences 23 4%
Neuroscience 17 3%
Other 61 12%
Unknown 136 26%

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 06 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,571,790
of 18,815,546 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,279
of 11,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,397
of 163,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,815,546 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 163,953 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 87 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 70% of its contemporaries.