↓ Skip to main content

A reappraisal of the quantitative relationship between sugar intake and dental caries: the need for new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
59 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
284 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A reappraisal of the quantitative relationship between sugar intake and dental caries: the need for new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aubrey Sheiham, W Philip T James

Abstract

There is a clear relation between sugars and caries. However, no analysis has yet been made of the lifetime burden of caries induced by sugar to see whether the WHO goal of 10% level is optimum and compatible with low levels of caries. The objective of this study was to re-examine the dose-response and quantitative relationship between sugar intake and the incidence of dental caries and to see whether the WHO goal for sugar intake of 10% of energy intake (E) is optimum for low levels of caries in children and adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 282 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 15%
Student > Master 41 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 56 20%
Unknown 75 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 83 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 318. 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 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#102,705
of 24,835,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#94
of 16,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#786
of 231,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,835,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 231,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.