↓ Skip to main content

Inappropriate Timing of Swallow in the Respiratory Cycle Causes Breathing–Swallowing Discoordination

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
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
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Inappropriate Timing of Swallow in the Respiratory Cycle Causes Breathing–Swallowing Discoordination
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00676
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi Yagi, Yoshitaka Oku, Shinsuke Nagami, Yoshie Yamagata, Jun Kayashita, Akira Ishikawa, Kazuhisa Domen, Ryosuke Takahashi

Abstract

Rationale: Swallowing during inspiration and swallowing immediately followed by inspiration increase the chances of aspiration and may cause disease exacerbation. However, the mechanisms by which such breathing-swallowing discoordination occurs are not well-understood. Objectives: We hypothesized that breathing-swallowing discoordination occurs when the timing of the swallow in the respiratory cycle is inappropriate. To test this hypothesis, we monitored respiration and swallowing activity in healthy subjects and in patients with dysphagia using a non-invasive swallowing monitoring system. Measurements and Main Results: The parameters measured included the timing of swallow in the respiratory cycle, swallowing latency (interval between the onset of respiratory pause and the onset of swallow), pause duration (duration of respiratory pause for swallowing), and the breathing-swallowing coordination pattern. We classified swallows that closely follow inspiration (I) as I-SW, whereas those that precede I as SW-I pattern. Patients with dysphagia had prolonged swallowing latency and pause duration, and tended to have I-SW or SW-I patterns reflecting breathing-swallows discoordination. Conclusions: We conclude that swallows at inappropriate timing in the respiratory cycle cause breathing-swallowing discoordination, and the prolongation of swallowing latency leads to delayed timing of the swallow, and results in an increase in the SW-I pattern in patients with dysphagia.

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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Psychology 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 25 45%
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 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,916,739
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,231
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,471
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#169
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 318,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 299 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.