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 |
Dietary habits, oral impact on daily performance and type 2 diabetes: a matched case-control study from Sudan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0686-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hasaan G. Mohamed, Kamal Mustafa, Salah O. Ibrahim, Anne N. Åstrøm |
| Abstract |
It is evident that social and behavioural factors influence on individuals' general health and quality of life. Nevertheless, information about the influence of dietary habits on oral health-related quality of life is limited; especially among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of this study was to examine the influence of dietary habits and clinical oral health indicators on oral health-related quality of life in individuals with and without T2D. A total of 149 T2D cases and 298 controls were recruited for this age and gender matched case-control study. Questionnaire-guided interviews were conducted to collect data about socio-demographic characteristics, consumption of food items per week (milk, meat, eggs, vegetables, fruits, sweets and bread) and oral impact on daily performance (OIDP). Plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, tooth mobility, decayed, missing and filled teeth index (DMFT) and root caries were recorded. Difficulty with eating and sleeping were more frequently reported by T2D cases (23.5% and 16.1%, respectively) than by the controls (10.7% and 5.0%, respectively) (P < 0.01). After adjusting for diabetic status, plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, tooth mobility, root caries, and missing teeth, those with high consumption of milk and sweets, were more likely than those with low consumption to report any oral impact (OIDP > 0). The corresponding ORs were 1.23 (1.01-4.89) and 2.10 (1.08-4.09), respectively. Participants with low consumption of meat and vegetables were more likely than their counterparts with high consumption to report any oral impact. The corresponding ORs were 0.46 (0.25-0.83) and 0.38 (0.17-0.87), respectively. There was a significant interaction between diabetic status and meat consumption as well as between diabetic status and bread consumption. Oral impacts were more frequently reported in T2D cases than controls. Independent of diabetic- and oral clinical status, dietary habits discriminated between individuals with and without oral impacts. The influence of meat and bread consumption on OIDP varied significantly according to T2D status. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 50 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 53 | 42% |
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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,893,544
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,510
of 2,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,186
of 313,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#49
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 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 2,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 313,704 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 71 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.