Efectividad del instrumento de evaluación de la Disartria de Frenchay vs la evaluación de la inteligibilidad del discurso disártrico.

Pérez Maldonado, Doryeis.

Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Pamplona

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://repositoriodspace.unipamplona.edu.co/jspui/handle/20.500.12744/2691

Registro completo de metadatos

Campo DC	Valor	Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.author	Pérez Maldonado, Doryeis.	-
dc.date.accessioned	2022-09-06T16:25:24Z	-
dc.date.available	2020-09-04	-
dc.date.available	2022-09-06T16:25:24Z	-
dc.date.issued	2020	-
dc.identifier.citation	Pérez Maldonado, D. (2020). Efectividad del instrumento de evaluación de la Disartria de Frenchay vs la evaluación de la inteligibilidad del discurso disártrico [Trabajo de Grado Pregrado, Universidad de Pamplona]. Repositorio Hulago Universidad de Pamplona. http://repositoriodspace.unipamplona.edu.co/jspui/handle/20.500.12744/2691	es_CO
dc.identifier.uri	http://repositoriodspace.unipamplona.edu.co/jspui/handle/20.500.12744/2691	-
dc.description	INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo del presente estudio es conocer la efectividad Del Instrumento de Evaluación De La Disartria De Frenchay frente a la Evaluación De La Inteligibilidad Del Discurso Disártrico y determinar cuál instrumento es más sensible para cuantificar la inteligibilidad en el habla Disártrica MÉTODOS: Para esta investigación, se lleva a cabo una revisión sistemática a través de la metodología PRISMA conformada por cuatro fases: fase de identificación, fase de tamización, fase de selección y fase de inclusión, aplicándose el modelo Grading of Recommendations, Assessment and Development (GRADE) y finalmente se realiza un análisis bibliométrico. RESULTADOS: Se vieron reflejadas características en los estudios, sobre la sensibilidad, validez y fiabilidad de los instrumentos de evaluación. En los estudios, la población estuvo conformada por dos grupos de individuos diagnosticados con disartria y otro de control con discurso normal, a los cuales se les aplico dichas pruebas. ANÁLISIS Y DISCUSIÓN: Es importante saber que la inteligibilidad del habla, es una de las características principales que se observan en personas con Disartria, teniendo en cuenta que el habla disártrica es menos inteligible, debido a que presentan una afectación a nivel neurológico lo que no permite un proceso armónico, correcto y precio en el habla. CONCLUSIONES: Para el fonoaudiólogo es importante determinar la dificultad de la inteligibilidad que con frecuencia acompaña en mayor o menor grado al habla disártrica. Considerándola como una medida válida y fiable de la misma, no siendo fácil, al tratarse de una dimensión compleja y al mismo tiempo de naturaleza relativa.	es_CO
dc.description.abstract	INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment Instrument compared to the Assessment of Dysarthric Speech Intelligibility and to determine which instrument is most sensitive to quantify intelligibility in Dysarthric speech. METHODS: For this research, a systematic review is carried out through the PRISMA methodology consisting of four phases: identification phase, screening phase, selection phase and inclusion phase, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment and Development (GRADE) model. ) and finally a bibliometric analysis is performed. RESULTS: Characteristics were reflected in the studies, regarding the sensitivity, validity and reliability of the assessment instruments. In the studies, the population consisted of two groups of individuals diagnosed with dysarthria and a control group with normal speech, to whom these tests were applied. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: It is important to know that speech intelligibility is one of the main characteristics observed in people with dysarthria, taking into account that Dysarthric speech is less intelligible, since they have a neurological impairment, which does not allow a harmonic process. , correct and price in the speech. CONCLUSIONS: For the speech therapist, it is important to determine the difficulty of intelligibility that frequently accompanies Dysarthric speech to a greater or lesser degree. Considering it as a valid and reliable measure of it, not being easy, since it is a complex dimension and at the same time of a relative nature.	es_CO
dc.format.extent	23	es_CO
dc.format.mimetype	application/pdf	es_CO
dc.language.iso	es	es_CO
dc.publisher	Universidad de Pamplona - Facultad de Salud.	es_CO
dc.subject	Habla.	es_CO
dc.subject	Disartria.	es_CO
dc.subject	Evaluacion.	es_CO
dc.subject	Inteligibilidad.	es_CO
dc.subject	Fonoaudiología.	es_CO
dc.title	Efectividad del instrumento de evaluación de la Disartria de Frenchay vs la evaluación de la inteligibilidad del discurso disártrico.	es_CO
dc.type	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1	es_CO
dc.date.accepted	2020-06-04	-
dc.relation.references	1. Chandrashekar, H. M., Karjigi, V. & Sreedevi, N. Spectrooral Representation of Speech for Intelligibility Assessment of Dysarthria. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 14, 390–399 (2020).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	2. Martínez, D. et al. Intelligibility assessment and speech recognizer word accuracy rate prediction for dysarthric speakers in a factor analysis subspace. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 6, (2015).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	3. Barkmeier-Kraemer, J. M. & Clark, H. M. Speech–language pathology evaluation and management of hyperkinetic disorders affecting speech and swallowing function. Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements 7, 1–19 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	4. Levy, E. S. et al. Effects of speech cues in French-speaking children with dysarthria. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 1– 16 (2020) doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12526.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	5. Pawlukowska, W., Szylińska, A., Kotlęga, D., Rotter, I. & Nowacki, P. Differences between Subjective and Objective Assessment of Speech Deficiency in Parkinson Disease. J. Voice 32, 715–722 (2018).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	6. Singh, A., Epstein, E., Myers, L. M., Farmer, J. M. & Lynch, D. R. Clinical measures of dysarthria in Friedreich ataxia. Mov. Disord. 25, 108–111 (2010).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	7. Melle, N. Disartria. Práctica basada en la evidencia y guías de práctica clínica. Rev. Logop. Foniatr. y Audiol. 32, 120– 133 (2012).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	8. Llau, M. J. Medida de la inteligibilidad en el habla disártrica. 24, 33–43 (2004).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	9. Lowit, A. Acquired motor speech disorders. Cambridge Handb. Commun. Disord. 400–418 (2015) doi:10.1017/CBO9781139108683.027.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	10. Balzan, P., Vella, A. & Tattersall, C. Assessment of intelligibility in dysarthria: development of a Maltese word and phrase list. Clin. Linguist. Phonetics 33, 965–977 (2019).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	11. Barreto, S. D. S. & Ortiz, K. Z. Speech Intelligibility in Dysarthrias: Influence of Utterance Length. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. (2019) doi:10.1159/000497178.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	12. Becker, J. et al. The effects of thalamic and posterior subthalamic deep brain stimulation on speech in patients with essential tremor – A prospective, randomized, doubleblind crossover study. Brain Lang. 202, 104724 (2020).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	13. Bhat, C. & Strik, H. Automatic Assessment of Sentence-Level Dysarthria Intelligibility Using BLSTM. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 14, 322–330 (2020).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	14. Bloch, S. & Tuomainen, J. Progressive dysarthria and augmentative and alternative communication in conversation: establishing the reliability of the Dysarthria-in-Interaction Profile. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 52, 3–9 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	15. Chandrashekar, H. M., Karjigi, V. & Sreedevi, N. Breathiness indices for classification of dysarthria based on type and speech intelligibility. 2019 Int. Conf. Wirel. Commun. Signal Process. Networking, WiSPNET 2019 266–270 (2019) doi:10.1109/WiSPNET45539.2019.9032852.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	16. Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Terband, H., Snik, A. F. M. & Maassen, B. A. M. Speech Characteristics and Intelligibility in Adults with Mild and Moderate Intellectual Disabilities. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 68, 175–182 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	17. Defazio, G., Guerrieri, M., Liuzzi, D., Fabio, A. & Nicola, V. Assessment of voice and speech symptoms in early Parkinson ’ s disease by the Robertson dysarthria profile. (2015) doi:10.1007/s10072-015-2422-8.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	18. Barreto, S. & Zazo, K. Protocol for the Evaluation of Speech Intelligibility in Dysarthrias : Evidence of Reliability and Validity. 212–218 (2016) doi:10.1159/000441929.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	19. Eigentler, A., Rhomberg, J., Poewe, W. & Boesch, S. The scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia correlates with dysarthria assessment in Friedreich ’ s ataxia. 420–426 (2012) doi:10.1007/s00415-011-6192-9.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	20. Enderby, P. The Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment. (2018) doi:10.3109/13682828009112541.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	21. Carmichael, J. Introducing Objective Acoustic Metrics for the Frenchay Dysarthria Introducing Objective Acoustic Metrics for the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment Procedure. (2015) doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4037.8960.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	22. Cardoso, R. et al. Frenchay dysarthria assessment (FDA-2) in Parkinson’s disease: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the European Portuguese version. J. Neurol. 264, 21–31 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	23. Ferreira González, I., Urrútia, G. & Alonso-Coello, P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Scientific rationale and interpretation. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 64, 688–696 (2011).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	24. González de Dios, J., Buñuel Álvarez, J. & Aparicio Rodrigo, M. Listas guía de comprobación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: declaración PRISMA. Evidencias en Pediatría 7, 97 (2011).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	25. Hutton, B., Catalá-López, F. & Moher, D. La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA. Med. Clin. (Barc). 147, 262–266 (2016).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	26. Urrutia, G. & Bonfill, X. PRISMA_Spanish.pdf. Medicina Clínica vol. 135 507–511 (2010).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	27. Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Humana y Diet. 20, 148–160 (2016).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	28. Manterola, C., Astudillo, P., Arias, E. & Claros, N. Revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura. Qué se debe saber acerca de ellas. Cir. Esp. 91, 149–155 (2013).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	29. Jiménez Ruiz, C. A. et al. Using PICO Methodology to Answer Questions About Smoking in COPD Patients. Arch. Bronconeumol. 53, 622–628 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	30. Carranza, L. et al. Articulo original Aplicación de las t ecnologías de la información y la comunicación para la búsqueda de información científica en el posgrado de especialidades médicas . Application of information and communication technologies for the search of scientific information in the graduate of medical specialties . 18–25 (2018).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	31. Revistas, R. De, América, C. De & V, B. V. Colombia Sistema de Información Científica MEDIANTE OPERADORES BOOLEANOS. (2003).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	32. Rodríguez, G. M., Mayol, V. C. & Paz González Rodríguez, M. (Caddick et al) (Wilkinson et al., n.d.) Pero también en oncológicos (Vaughan J, 2013). Evidencias en Pediatría 8, 1–6 (2012).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	33. Oliveira, M. R. F., Oliveira, Gomes, A. de C. & Toscano, C. M. QUADAS and STARD : evaluating the quality of. Rev Saúde Pública 45, 6–11 (2011).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	34. Ciapponi, A. QUADAS-2 : instrumento para la evaluación de la calidad de estudios de precisión diagnóstica QUADAS2 : an instrument for the evaluation of the quality of diagnostic precision studies. Evidencia 22–26 (2015).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	35. Aguayo-Albasini, J. L., Flores-Pastor, B. & Soria-Aledo, V. Sistema GRADE: Clasificación de la calidad de la evidencia y graduación de la fuerza de la recomendación. Cir. Esp. 92, 82–88 (2014).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	36. Alonso-Coello, P. et al. Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 2: Guías de práctica clínica. Gac. Sanit. 32, 167.e1-167.e10 (2018).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	37. Neumann, I., Pantoja, T., Peñaloza, B., Cifuentes, L. & Rada, G. The GRADE system: A change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Rev. Med. Chil. 142, 630–635 (2014).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	38. Hernández, M. A. M. Indicadores bibliométricos : Características y limitaciones en el análisis de la actividad científica Justificación de la evaluación científica. 47, 235–244 (1997).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	39. Escorcia-otálora, T. A. & Poutou-piñales, R. A. Análisis bibliométrico de los artículos originales publicados en la revista Universitas Scientiarum ( 1987-2007 ). 13, 236–244 (2009).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	40. Mackenzie, C., Green, J., Mackenzie, C. & Green, J. Cognitive – linguistic deficit and speech intelligibility in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. (2009) doi:10.1080/13682820802697879.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	41. Hill, A. J. et al. An internet-based telerehabilitation system for the assessment of motor speech disorders: A pilot study. Am. J. Speech-Language Pathol. 15, 45–56 (2006).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	42. Vijayalakshmi, P. & Reddy, M. R. Assessment of dysarthric speech and an analysis on velopharyngeal incompetence. 3759–3762 (2006).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	43. Cahill, L. M., Murdoch, B. E. & Theodoros, D. G. Articulatory function following traumatic brain injury in childhood: A perceptual and instrumental analysis. Brain Inj. 19, 41–58 (2005).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	44. Cornwell, P. L., Bruce, E., Ward, E. C. & Kellie, S. Perceptual evaluation of motor speech following treatment for childhood cerebellar tumour. (2003) doi:10.1080/0269920031000111339.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	45. Mckinstry, A. & Perry, A. Evaluation of speech in people with head and neck cancer : a Pilot Study. 31–46 (2003) doi:10.1080/1368282021000014877.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	46. Wallace, G. L. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL PERIPHERAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN NORMAL AGING INDIVIDUALS WITH THE FRENCHAY. 24, 101–109 (1991).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	47. Jennifer P. Lundine & Rebecca J. McCauley. A Tutorial on Expository Discourse: Structure, Development, and Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Am. J. Speech-Language Pathol. 25, 1–15 (2016).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	48. Ghio, A., Giusti, L., Blanc, E. & Pinto, S. intelligibility test. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. (2019) doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2019.10.007.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	49. Hustad, K. C. & Beukelman, D. R. Effects of Linguistic Cues and Stimulus Cohesion on Intelligibility of Severely Dysarthric Speech. 497–510 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	50. Of, A. C. et al. A COMPARISON OF THE AIDS SENTENCE LIST AND SPONTANEOUS SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY SCORES FOR DYSARTHRIC SPEECH. (1981).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	51. Profile, S. E. E. Inteligibilidad en la disartria atáxica. Estudio de un caso de Atrofia olivo-ponto-cerebelosa. (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	52. Kim, M. J., Kim, Y. & Kim, H. Automatic Intelligibility Assessment of Dysarthric Speech Using PhonologicallyStructured Sparse Linear Model. 23, 694–704 (2015).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	53. Roura, M. A. & Gonz, E. Trabajo de diploma. (2012).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	54. Kim, M. J. & Kim, H. Automatic Assessment of Dysarthric Speech Intelligibility Based on Selected Phonetic Quality Features. 447–450 (2012).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	55. Altaher, A. M., Chu, S. Y., Kam, M., Razak, R. A. & History, C. REVIEW ARTICLE A Report of Assessment Tools for Individuals with Dysarthria Abstract : 384–386 (2019) doi:10.2174/1874944501912010384.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	56. Review, D., Kent, R. D., Duffy, J. R., Kent, J. F. & Clift, A. Clinicoanatomic Studies in Dysarthria: Review, Critique, and Directions for Research. 44, 535–552 (2001).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	57. Original, A. Preditividade das sentenças do protocolo de avaliação da inteligibilidade de fala nas disartrias. 23, 119– 123 (2011).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	58. Kumin, L. Inteligibilidad del habla : factores que afectan a la comprensión del habla \| Primera parte. 1–6.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	59. Delgado Hernández, J. & Izquierdo Arteaga, L. Relación entre las pendientes del segundo formante y las alteraciones motoras del habla en la disartria. Rev. Logop. Foniatr. y Audiol. 36, 71–76 (2016).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	60. Cp, H. et al. Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson ’ s disease ( Review ). (2012).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	61. Simmons, K. C. THE USE OF THE MAYO CLINIC SYSTEM FOR DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF DYSARTHRIA. 30, 117–132 (1997).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	62. Piacentini, V. et al. The Relationship Between Quality of Life and Dysarthria in Patients with Mutliple Sclerosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. (2014) doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.04.023.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	63. The Effects of Speech Compression Algorithms on the Intelligibility of Two Individuals With Dysarthric Speech. 1–9 (2018).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	64. Yorkston, K. M. & Beukelman, D. R. COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY OF DYSARTHRIC SPEAKERS AS M E A S U R E D BY S E N T E N C E INTELLIGIBILITY AND SPEAKING RATE. (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	65. Smith, C. H. et al. Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson ’ s Disease : a comparison of trained and untrained listeners. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 0, 1–8 (2019).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	66. Fletcher, A. R., Risi, A., Wisler, A. & Mcauliffe, J. Examining Listener Reaction Time in the Perceptual Assessment of Dysarthria. (2019) doi:10.1159/000499752.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	67. Pawlukowska, W. et al. Comparative assessment and monitoring of deterioration of articulatory organs using subjective and objective tools among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 1–8 (2019).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	68. Haley, K. L., Roth, H., Grindstaff, E. & Jacks, A. Computer-mediated assessment of intelligibility in aphasia and apraxia of speech. 25, 1600–1620 (2011).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	69. Sheard, C., Adams, R. D. & Davis, P. J. Reliability and Agreement of Ratings of Ataxic Dysarthric Speech Samples With Varying Intelligibility. 34, 285–293 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	70. Theodoros, D. et al. Assessment of motor speech disorders online : a pilot study. 9, 66–68 (2003).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	71. Enderby, P. & Enderby, P. Relationships between dysarthric groups. (2016) doi:10.3109/13682828609012276.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	72. Bloch, S. & Barnes, S. Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation. Clin. Linguist. Phonetics 00, 1– 21 (2019).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	73. Luquin Piudo, M. R., Alonso-Navarro, H., Burguera Hernndez, J. A. & Jimnez-Jimnez, F. J. Protocolo diagn?sticoterap?utico de los s?ndromes at?xicos. Med. - Programa Form. M?dica Contin. Acreditado 9, 4787–4789 (2007).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	74. Lahcene, K., Ahmed, S. & Boudraa, B. ScienceDirect Fully automated speaker identification and intelligibility assessment in dysarthria disease using auditory knowledge. Integr. Med. Res. 36, 233–247 (2015).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	75. Viñals Alvarez, F., Domínguez-Morales, M., Vega Domínguez, O. & León Carrión, J. Disartria espástica: rehabilitación de la fonación de un paciente con traumatismo cráneo-encefálico. Rev. española Neuropsicol. 3, 34–45 (2001).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	76. Perceptually Enhanced Single Frequency Filtering For Dysarthric Speech Detection And Intelligibility Assessment Krishna Gurugubelli , Anil Kumar Vuppala International Institute of Information Technology , Hyderabad , India. 6410–6414 (2019).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	77. Wannberg, P., Schalling, E. & Hartelius, L. Perceptual assessment of dysarthria : Comparison of a general and a detailed assessment protocol. 5439, (2016).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	78. Pennington, L. & Miller, N. Influence of listening conditions and listener characteristics on intelligibility of dysarthric speech. 21, 393–403 (2007).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	79. Tripoliti, E. et al. Predictive factors of speech intelligibility following subthalamic nucleus stimulation in consecutive patients with Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 29, 532–538 (2014).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	80. Yorkston, K. M., Strand, E. A. & Kennedy, M. R. T. Comprehensibility of Dysarthric Speech: Implications for Assessment and Treatment Planning. Am. J. Speech-Language Pathol. 5, 55–65 (1996).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	81. Pierre, T. THE Realiability of internet Based Assessment of persons with motor speech disorder. copyright 2, (2010).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	82. Predicting Intelligibility Gains in Individuals With Dysarthria From Baseline Speech Features. 1–15 (2017).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	83. Knuijt, S., Kalf, G. & Engelen, B. G. M. Van. The Radboud Dysarthria Assessment : Development and Clinimetric Evaluation. 143–153 (2018) doi:10.1159/000484556.	es_CO
dc.relation.references	84. Nakatani, Y. & Ichikawa, K. Yoshio Nakatani * 1 Kanako Ichikawa *2. Innovation 12, 439–449 (2010).	es_CO
dc.relation.references	85. Carmichael, J. N. Enhancing speech rate estimation techniques to improve dysarthria diagnosis. 2017 8th IEEE Annu. Inf. Technol. Electron. Mob. Commun. Conf. IEMCON 2017 309–313 (2017) doi:10.1109/IEMCON.2017.8117233.	es_CO
dc.rights.accessrights	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2	es_CO
dc.type.coarversion	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1	es_CO
Aparece en las colecciones:	Fonoaudiología

Ficheros en este ítem:

Fichero	Descripción	Tamaño	Formato
Pérez_2020_TG.pdf	Pérez_2020_TG	750,42 kB	Adobe PDF	Visualizar/Abrir

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

DSpace JSPUI

DSpace almacena y facilita el acceso abierto a todo tipo de contenido digital incluyendo texto, imágenes, vídeos y colecciones de datos.