↓ Skip to main content

Exercise-induced Laryngeal Obstruction: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Treatment Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise-induced Laryngeal Obstruction: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Treatment Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2022
DOI 10.3389/fped.2022.817003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hege Clemm, Ola D. Røksund, Tiina Andersen, John-Helge Heimdal, Tom Karlsen, Magnus Hilland, Zoe Fretheim-Kelly, Karl Ove Hufthammer, Astrid Sandnes, Sigrun Hjelle, Maria Vollsæter, Thomas Halvorsen, Haakon Kvidaland, Petrine Solli, Petter Carlsen, Praveen Muralitharan, Mette Engan, Lorentz Sandvik, Ole C.O. Gamlemshaug

Abstract

Exercise-induced laryngeal obstruction (EILO) is a common cause of exertional breathing problems in young individuals, caused by paradoxical inspiratory adduction of laryngeal structures, and diagnosed by continuous visualization of the larynx during high-intensity exercise. Empirical data suggest that EILO consists of different subtypes, possibly requiring different therapeutic approaches. Currently applied treatments do not rest on randomized controlled trials, and international guidelines based on good evidence can therefore not be established. This study aims to provide evidence-based information on treatment schemes commonly applied in patients with EILO. Consenting patients consecutively diagnosed with EILO at Haukeland University Hospital will be randomized into four non-invasive treatment arms, based on promising reports from non-randomized studies: (A) standardized information and breathing advice only (IBA), (B) IBA plus inspiratory muscle training, (C) IBA plus speech therapy, and (D) IBA plus inspiratory muscle training and speech therapy. Differential effects in predefined EILO subtypes will be addressed. Patients failing the non-invasive approach and otherwise qualifying for surgical treatment by current department policy will be considered for randomization into (E) standard or (F) minimally invasive laser supraglottoplasty or (G) no surgery. Power calculations are based on the main outcomes, laryngeal adduction during peak exercise, rated by a validated scoring system before and after the interventions. The study will assess approaches to EILO treatments that despite widespread use, are insufficiently tested in structured, verifiable, randomized, controlled studies, and is therefore considered ethically sound. The study will provide knowledge listed as a priority in a recent statement issued by the European Respiratory Society, requested by clinicians and researchers engaged in this area, and relevant to 5-7% of young people. Dissemination will occur in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant media platforms and conferences, and by engaging with patient organizations and the healthcare bureaucracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Unspecified 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Unspecified 3 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2022.
All research outputs
#18,832,709
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,509
of 6,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#367,625
of 510,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#219
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 510,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.