| Title |
Association between dental prosthesis need, nutritional status and quality of life of elderly subjects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-015-1030-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rajath Sasidharan Pillai, Vijay Prakash Mathur, Veena Jain, Naseem Shah, Sandeep Kalra, Pravesh Kumar, A. B. Dey |
| Abstract |
To determine the effect of prosthesis need on nutritional status and oral health-related quality of life (OHrQoL) in elderly and to check the disparity between prosthesis need and prosthesis want in the Indian elderly. A total of 946 geriatric participants reporting to a geriatric medicine clinic were recruited in the study. Mini-nutritional assessment (MNA), geriatric oral health assessment (GOHAI) indices, prosthesis need according to WHO criteria, and prosthesis want was recorded along with age, gender, socioeconomic status and posterior occluding pair. Significant associations exist between prosthesis need and age (p = 0.005), MNA (p = 0.006) and GOHAI (p = 0.000). Prosthesis demand too was influenced by age (p = 0.004), posterior occluding pairs (p = 0.000), MNA (p = 0.012) and GOHAI (p = 0.000). GOHAI was negatively correlated with upper (r = -0.445) and lower prosthesis need (r = -0.460). Participants with some prosthesis need had significantly lower MNA and GOHAI scores as compared to those with no prosthesis need. Though prosthesis need was high (79.7 %), demand was low (39.3 %). Prosthesis need affects nutritional status and OHrQoL in elderly, and a wide gap exists between need and want of prosthesis. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,337,950
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,678
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,371
of 264,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#29
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 264,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.