↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of school-based caries prevention: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 1,494)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Comparative effectiveness of school-based caries prevention: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Oral Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12903-018-0514-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Richard Ruff, Richard Niederman

Abstract

Dental caries is the world's most prevalent childhood disease. School-based caries prevention can reduce the risk of childhood caries by increasing access to care. However, the optimal mix of treatment services, intensity, and frequency of care is unknown. Data were derived from two prospective cohorts of US children participating in two caries prevention programs with different treatment intensities. One program provided primary and secondary prevention (glass ionomer sealants and interim therapeutic restorations) and one primary prevention only (glass ionomer sealants), both given twice yearly in six-month intervals. Primary study outcomes included untreated decay and the total observed caries experience. Analysis used generalized additive models to estimate nonlinear effects and trends over time. Results were compared to those estimated using generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression. Primary and secondary prevention combined did not significantly reduce total caries experience compared to primary prevention alone, but did reduce the risk of untreated decay on permanent dentition. Additionally, the rate of new caries experience was slower in the primary and secondary prevention group. Nonlinear trends for dental caries across both programs were statistically significant from zero (p < .001). Caries prevention consisting of primary and secondary prevention agents may be more effective than primary prevention alone in reducing the risk of tooth decay over time. Results suggest that the impact of caries prevention may not be constant over the medium- and long-term, suggesting reduced effectiveness with continued treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 40 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 40 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#859,219
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#25
of 1,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,427
of 330,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#1
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 330,044 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.