↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pharyngeal electrical stimulation device for the treatment of neurogenic dysphagia: technology update

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 313)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Pharyngeal electrical stimulation device for the treatment of neurogenic dysphagia: technology update
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/mder.s122287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico A Restivo, Shaheen Hamdy

Abstract

Neurogenic dysphagia (ND) can occur in patients with nervous system diseases of varying etiologies. Moreover, recovery from ND is not guaranteed. The therapeutic approaches for oropharyngeal ND have drastically changed over the last decade, mainly due to a better knowledge of the neurophysiology of swallowing along with the progress of neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies. For this reason, it is a priority to develop a treatment that is repeatable, safe, and can be carried out at the bedside as well as for outpatients. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a novel rehabilitation treatment for ND. PES is carried out via location-specific intraluminal catheters that are introduced transnasally and enable clinicians to stimulate the pharynx directly. This technique has demonstrated increasingly promising evidence in improving swallowing performance in patients with ND associated with stroke and multiple sclerosis, probably by increasing the corticobulbar excitability and inducing cortical reorganization of swallowing motor cortex. In this article, we update the reader as to both the physiologic background and past and current studies of PES in an effort to highlight the clinical progress of this important technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 32 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 21%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 37 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,756,969
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#36
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,539
of 451,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 451,256 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.