| Title |
Associations Between Laryngeal and Cough Dysfunction in Motor Neuron Disease with Bulbar Involvement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-014-9554-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deanna Britton, Joshua O. Benditt, Albert L. Merati, Robert M. Miller, Cara E. Stepp, Louis Boitano, Amanda Hu, Marcia A. Ciol, Kathryn M. Yorkston |
| Abstract |
True vocal fold (TVF) dysfunction may lead to cough ineffectiveness. In individuals with motor neuron disease (MND), cough impairment in the context of dysphagia increases risk for aspiration and respiratory failure. This study characterizes differences and associations between TVF kinematics and airflow during cough in individuals with bulbar MND. Sequential glottal angles associated with TVF movements during volitional cough were analyzed from laryngeal video endoscopy examinations of adults with bulbar MND (n = 12) and healthy controls (n = 12) and compared with simultaneously collected cough-related airflow measures. Significant group differences were observed with airflow and TVF measures: volume acceleration (p ≤ 0.001) and post-compression abduction TVF angle average velocity (p = 0.002) were lower and expiratory phase rise time (p = 0.001) was higher in the MND group. Reductions in maximum TVF angle during post-compression abduction in the MND group approached significance (p = 0.09). All subjects demonstrated complete TVF and supraglottic closure during the compression phase of cough, except for incomplete supraglottic closure in 2/12 MND participants. A strong positive relationship between post-compression maximum TVF abduction angle and peak expiratory cough flow was observed in the MND group, though it was not statistically significant (r = 0.55; p = 0.098). Reductions in the speed and extent of TVF abduction are seen during the expulsion phase of cough in individuals with MND. This may contribute to cough impairment and morbidity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
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 23 January 2015.
All research outputs
#21,178,329
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#1,254
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,255
of 231,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 231,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.