↓ Skip to main content

Caries risk assessment in children: how accurate are we?

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Caries risk assessment in children: how accurate are we?
Published in
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40368-015-0195-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Twetman

Abstract

To summarise the findings of recent systematic reviews (SR) covering caries risk assessment in children, updated with recent primary studies. A search for relevant papers published 2012-2014 was conducted in electronic databases. The systematic reviews were quality assessed with the AMSTAR tool and the primary publications according to the Cochrane handbook. The quality was rated as low, moderate, or high risk of bias. The findings were descriptively synthesised and the quality of evidence was graded according to GRADE. For the recommendations of practice, the SIGN scores were used (recommendation levels A-D). Three SR, three guidelines, and five papers, not considered in previous SR, were identified and formed the base for the present summary and recommendations. One of the systematic reviews and three of the primary publications were of moderate risk of bias, while the rest displayed a high risk of bias. Based on the present summary of literature, it may be concluded: (1) a caries risk assessment should be carried out at the child's first dental visit and reassessments should be done during childhood (D); (2) multivariate models display a better accuracy than the use of single predictors and this is especially true for preschool children (C); (3) there is no clearly superior method to predict future caries and no evidence to support the use of one model, program, or technology before the other (C); and (4) the risk category should be linked to appropriate preventive care with recall intervals based on the individual need (C).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Dominican Republic 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 28 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 49%
Materials Science 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 28 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,765,819
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#191
of 281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,299
of 263,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 281 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 263,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them