↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Magnification devices for endodontic therapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005969.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, Lodi G, Banfi G, Weinstein RL

Abstract

After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics, involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a continuous search for enhancing the visualisation of the surgical field. It would be interesting to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices like surgical microscope, endoscope and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient, in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 3 9%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 19%
Other 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,837,217
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,644
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,036
of 109,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 109,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 55% of its contemporaries.