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 |
Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups − a micro-simulation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6831-14-153 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Falk Schwendicke, Sebastian Paris, Michael Stolpe |
| Abstract |
Whilst being the most prevalent disease worldwide, dental caries is increasingly concentrated in high-risk populations. New caries treatments should therefore be evaluated not only in terms of their cost-effectiveness in individuals, but also their effects on the distribution of costs and benefits across different populations. To treat deep caries, there are currently three strategies: selective (one-step incomplete), stepwise (two-step incomplete) and complete excavation. Building on prior research that found selective excavation generally cost-effective, we compared the costs-effectiveness of different excavations in low- and high-risk patients, hypothesizing that selective excavation had greater cost-effectiveness-advantages in patients with high compared with low risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 14% |
| Thailand | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 71% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 53% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 09 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,585,094
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#111
of 1,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,976
of 361,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 361,718 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 96% of its contemporaries.