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 |
Advances in Optical Adjunctive Aids for Visualisation and Detection of Oral Malignant and Potentially Malignant Lesions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Dentistry, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2013/194029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nirav Bhatia, Yastira Lalla, An N. Vu, Camile S. Farah |
| Abstract |
Traditional methods of screening for oral potentially malignant disorders and oral malignancies involve a conventional oral examination with digital palpation. Evidence indicates that conventional examination is a poor discriminator of oral mucosal lesions. A number of optical aids have been developed to assist the clinician to detect oral mucosal abnormalities and to differentiate benign lesions from sinister pathology. This paper discusses advances in optical technologies designed for the detection of oral mucosal abnormalities. The literature regarding such devices, VELscope and Identafi, is critically analysed, and the novel use of Narrow Band Imaging within the oral cavity is also discussed. Optical aids are effective in assisting with the detection of oral mucosal abnormalities; however, further research is required to evaluate the usefulness of these devices in differentiating benign lesions from potentially malignant and malignant lesions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Dentistry
#256
of 463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,116
of 210,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Dentistry
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 210,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.