↓ Skip to main content

Therapies for bruxism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (protocol)

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2017
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 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
Therapies for bruxism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (protocol)
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0397-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mauro Elias Mesko, Brian Hutton, Jovito Adiel Skupien, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, David Moher, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci

Abstract

Bruxism is a sleep disorder characterized by grinding and clenching of the teeth that may be related to irreversible tooth injuries. It is a prevalent condition occurring in up to 31% of adults. However, there is no definitive answer as to which of the many currently available treatments (including drug therapy, intramuscular injections, physiotherapy, biofeedback, kinesiotherapy, use of intraoral devices, or psychological therapy) is the best for the clinical management of the different manifestations of bruxism. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to answer the following question: what is the best treatment for adult bruxists? Comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and LILACS will be completed using the following keywords: bruxism and therapies and related entry terms. Studies will be included, according to the eligibility criteria (Controlled Clinical Trials and Randomized Clinical Trials, considering specific outcome measures for bruxism). The reference lists of included studies will be hand searched. Relevant data will be extracted from included studies using a specially designed data extraction sheet. Risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed, and the overall strength of the evidence will be summarized (i.e., GRADE). A random effects model will be used for all pairwise meta-analyses (with a 95% confidence interval). A Bayesian network meta-analysis will explore the relative benefits between the various treatments. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews incorporating Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) statement. This systematic review aims at identifying and evaluating therapies to treat bruxism. This systematic review may lead to several recommendations, for both patients and researchers, as which is the best therapy for a specific patient case and how future studies need to be designed, considering what is available now and what is the reality of the patient. PROSPERO CRD42015023308.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 349 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 55 16%
Student > Master 43 12%
Student > Postgraduate 33 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 5%
Other 55 16%
Unknown 124 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 8%
Psychology 8 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 20 6%
Unknown 134 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#639,607
of 24,288,381 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#73
of 2,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,380
of 429,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,288,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 429,415 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.