You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Two‐colour chewing gum mixing ability: digitalisation and spatial heterogeneity analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1111/joor.12090 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. A. F. Weijenberg, E. J. A. Scherder, C. M. Visscher, T. Gorissen, E. Yoshida, F. Lobbezoo |
| Abstract |
Many techniques are available to assess masticatory performance, but not all are appropriate for every population. A proxy suitable for elderly persons suffering from dementia was lacking, and a two-colour chewing gum mixing ability test was investigated for this purpose. A fully automated digital analysis algorithm was applied to a mixing ability test using two-coloured gum samples in a stepwise increased number of chewing cycles protocol (Experiment 1: n = 14; seven men, 19-63 years), a test-retest assessment (Experiment 2: n = 10; four men, 20-49 years) and compared to an established wax cubes mixing ability test (Experiment 3: n = 13; 0 men, 21-31 years). Data were analysed with repeated measures anova (Experiment 1), the calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; Experiment 2) and Spearman's rho correlation coefficient (Experiment 3). The method was sensitive to increasing numbers of chewing cycles (F5,65 = 57·270, P = 0·000) and reliable in the test-retest (ICC value of 0·714, P = 0·004). There was no significant correlation between the two-coloured gum test and the wax cubes test. The two-coloured gum mixing ability test was able to adequately assess masticatory function and is recommended for use in a population of elderly persons with dementia. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 24% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 50% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
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 10 August 2013.
All research outputs
#19,971,836
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#1,077
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,181
of 202,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 202,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.