↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Interferential current sensory stimulation, through the neck skin, improves airway defense and oral nutrition intake in patients with dysphagia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Interferential current sensory stimulation, through the neck skin, improves airway defense and oral nutrition intake in patients with dysphagia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s140746
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keisuke Maeda, Takayuki Koga, Junji Akagi

Abstract

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation with muscle contraction, administered through the skin of the neck, improves a patient's swallowing ability. However, the beneficial effects of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation (TESS), without muscle contraction, are controversial. We investigated the effect of TESS, using interferential current, in patients undergoing dysphagia rehabilitation. This double-blind, randomized controlled trial involved 43 patients who were prescribed in-hospital dysphagia rehabilitation for ≥3 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to the sensory stimulation (SS) or sham groups; all received usual rehabilitative care plus 2 weeks of SS or sham intervention. Outcome measures included cough latency times against a 1% citric acid mist, functional oral intake scale (FOIS) scores, and oral nutritional intake - each determined after the second and third week following treatment initiation. Mean patient age was 84.3±7.5 years; 58% were women. The SS and sham groups had similar baseline characteristics. Changes in cough latency time at 2 weeks (-14.1±14.0 vs -5.2±14.2 s, p=0.047) and oral nutrition intake at 3 weeks (437±575 vs 138±315 kcal/day, p=0.042) improved more in the SS group than in the sham group. Changes in cough frequency and FOIS scores indicated better outcomes in the SS group, based on substantial effect sizes. TESS, using interferential current through the neck, improved airway defense and nutrition in patients suffering from dysphagia. Further large-scale studies are needed to confirm the technique's effect on swallowing ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Other 16 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 54 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 21%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Unspecified 2 1%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 63 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,395,692
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#368
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,049
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#13
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 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 81% 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 340,752 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.