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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Oral care and pulmonary infection - the importance of plaque scoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11896 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matt P Wise, David W Williams |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: Improving the quality of oral hygiene is recognised as an important counter measure for reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia amongst critically ill patients. Toothbrushing physically disrupts the dental plaque that acts as a reservoir for pulmonary infection and therefore has the potential to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Gu and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of oral hygiene with and without a toothbrush and found no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. The diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia is prone to bias and future studies of oral care interventions should focus on measures of oral cleanliness such as plaque and gingival scores. Once the optimal strategy for oral hygiene is defined in the critically ill, larger studies focussing on ventilator-associated pneumonia or mortality can be conducted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 30% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
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 10 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,739
of 290,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#79
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 290,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.