↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Improvements in tongue strength and pressure-generation precision following a tongue-pressure training protocol in older individuals with dysphagia: Three case reports

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Improvements in tongue strength and pressure-generation precision following a tongue-pressure training protocol in older individuals with dysphagia: Three case reports
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2008
DOI 10.2147/cia.s3825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin M Yeates, Sonja M Molfenter, Catriona M Steele

Abstract

Dysphagia, or difficulty swallowing, often occurs secondary to conditions such as stroke, head injury or progressive disease, many of which increase in frequency with advancing age. Sarcopenia, the gradual loss of muscle bulk and strength, can place older individuals at greater risk for dysphagia. Data are reported for three older participants in a pilot trial of a tongue-pressure training therapy. During the experimental therapy protocol, participants performed isometric strength exercises for the tongue as well as tongue pressure accuracy tasks. Biofeedback was provided using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI), an instrument that measures tongue pressure. Treatment outcome measures show increased isometric tongue strength, improved tongue pressure generation accuracy, improved bolus control on videofluoroscopy, and improved functional dietary intake by mouth. These preliminary results indicate that, for these three adults with dysphagia, tongue-pressure training was beneficial for improving both instrumental and functional aspects of swallowing. The experimental treatment protocol holds promise as a rehabilitative tool for various dysphagia populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 30 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 24%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Linguistics 4 3%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 37 24%
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 05 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,106
of 179,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 179,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.