↓ Skip to main content

Relationship Between the Eating Assessment Tool-10 and Objective Clinical Ratings of Swallowing Function in Individuals with Head and Neck Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia (0179051X), August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Relationship Between the Eating Assessment Tool-10 and Objective Clinical Ratings of Swallowing Function in Individuals with Head and Neck Cancer
Published in
Dysphagia (0179051X), August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00455-016-9741-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loni C. Arrese, Ricardo Carrau, Emily K. Plowman

Abstract

The Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) represents a validated, easy to administer patient report dysphagia severity scale. Although its ability to detect swallowing impairment has been investigated in other patient populations, the utility of this instrument in individuals with head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been studied. The aim of the current investigation was to determine the relationship between patient ratings of swallowing impairment (EAT-10) and objective clinical ratings of swallow physiology in individuals with HNC. Forty-four HNC participants completed the EAT-10 and a standardized videofluoroscopy swallow study. Blinded raters determined airway safety using the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) and swallowing function using the modified barium swallow impairment profile (MBSImP™©). Participants were stratified into three groups (pre-treatment through 1 year post-treatment, 1-5 years post-treatment, and >5 years post-treatment). Independent t tests, Pearson's and Spearman's Rho correlations, and a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were performed. EAT-10 scores were significantly higher in HNC patients with unsafe swallowing (M 24.45, SD 8.32) compared to those with safe swallowing (M 16.20, SD 12.14), t(21) = -2.36, p  < 0.04. Significant correlations were revealed between EAT-10 scores and the MBSImP™© (pharyngeal composite), and PAS scores (p < 0.05) for the pre-treatment to within 1 year post-treatment group. No associations, however, were observed for HNC patients in the time groups representing greater than 1-year post cancer treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 33%
Unspecified 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,342,655
of 12,230,159 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#578
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,950
of 263,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,230,159 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 263,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.