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 |
Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6831-14-35 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Hélène Fron-Chabouis, Frédéric Courson |
| Abstract |
To ensure evidence-based decision-making in pediatric oral health, Cochrane systematic reviews that address topics pertinent to this field are necessary. We aimed to identify all systematic reviews of paediatric dentistry and oral health by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), summarize their characteristics and assess their methodological quality. Our second objective was to assess implications for practice in the review conclusions and provide an overview of clinical implications about the usefulness of paediatric oral health interventions in practice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 53% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,199,380
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#620
of 1,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,098
of 228,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,461 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 228,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 51% of its contemporaries.