↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Oral drug therapy in elderly with dysphagia: between a rock and a hard place!

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
Title
Oral drug therapy in elderly with dysphagia: between a rock and a hard place!
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s121905
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena Logrippo, Giovanna Ricci, Matteo Sestili, Marco Cespi, Letizia Ferrara, Giovanni F Palmieri, Roberta Ganzetti, Giulia Bonacucina, Paolo Blasi

Abstract

Demographic indicators forecast that by 2050, the elderly will account for about one-third of the global population. Geriatric patients require a large number of medicines, and in most cases, these products are administered as solid oral solid dosage forms, as they are by far the most common formulations on the market. However, this population tends to suffer difficulties with swallowing. Caregivers in hospital geriatric units routinely compound in solid oral dosage forms for dysphagic patients by crushing the tablets or opening the capsules to facilitate administration. The manipulation of a tablet or a capsule, if not clearly indicated in the product labeling, is an off-label use of the medicine, and must be supported by documented scientific evidence and requires the patient's informed consent. Compounding of marketed products has been recognized as being responsible for an increased number of adverse events and medical errors. Since extemporaneous compounding is the rule and not the exception in geriatrics departments, the seriousness and scope of issues caused by this daily practice are probably underestimated. In this article, the potential problems associated with the manipulation of authorized solid oral dosage forms are discussed.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 3%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 58 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 68 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 14 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,842,868
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#199
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,707
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.