↓ Skip to main content

Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0177-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald Brad Rindal, Thomas J Flottemesch, Emily U Durand, Olga V Godlevsky, Andrew M Schmidt, Gregg H Gilbert

Abstract

Significant national investments have aided the development of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in both medicine and dentistry. Little evidence has examined the translational impact of these efforts and whether PBRN involvement corresponds to better adoption of best available evidence. This study addresses that gap in knowledge and examines changes in early dental decay among PBRN participants and non-participants with access to the same evidence-based guideline. This study examines the following questions regarding PBRN participation: are practice patterns of providers with PBRN engagement in greater concordance with current evidence? Does provider participation in a PBRNs increase concordance with current evidence? Do providers who participate in PBRN activities disseminate knowledge to their colleagues?

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,132,794
of 22,053,897 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,084
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,355
of 349,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#93
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,053,897 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 349,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.