| Title |
CAD/CAM versus traditional indirect methods in the fabrication of inlays, onlays, and crowns
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011063 |
| Authors |
Kay T Oen, Analia Veitz‐Keenan, Silvia Spivakovsky, Y Jo Wong, Eman Bakarman, Julie Yip |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 29% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 52% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,682
of 241,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 241,510 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.