↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 172 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 48 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Neuroscience 8 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 60 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,584,518
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,052
of 12,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,872
of 281,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 281,865 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.