↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Prior, Paula Elouafkaoui, Andrew Elders, Linda Young, Eilidh M Duncan, Rumana Newlands, Jan E Clarkson, Craig R Ramsay, the Translation Research in a Dental Setting (TRiaDS) Research Methodology Group

Abstract

Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Other 8 5%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 37%
Psychology 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 42 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,444,758
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#857
of 1,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,349
of 230,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#19
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 230,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.