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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Association between Ear Fullness, Earache, and Temporomandibular Joint Disorders in the Elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0034-1385844 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julya Macedo, Marcelo Doi, Paula Vanessa Oltramari-Navarro, Vanessa Gorres, Marina Stephany Mendes, Izabele Machado Silva, Ricardo Navarro, Luciana Lozza Marchiori |
| Abstract |
Introduction An earache (otalgia or ear pain) is pain in one or both ears that may last a short or long time. Earache is prevalent in the population with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJDs), but there is a dearth of epidemiologic studies regarding the association between TMJD and ear pain and ear fullness in older people. Objective To assess the presence of earache and ear fullness in elderly patients with TMJD. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in independently living, elderly individuals. TMJD was assessed by dental evaluation and earache was verified by medical history. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test and relative risk. Results Of the 197 subjects evaluated in this part of the study, 22 had earache, and 35 was verified by ear fullness. Of the 22 subjects with earache, none had conductive or mixed hearing loss in the ears tested. There was a significant association (p = 0.036) between the TMJD and earache (odds ratio = 2.3), but there was no significant association between the TMJD and ear fullness. Conclusion These results highlight the importance of identifying risk factors for earache that can be modified through specific interventions, which is essential in the prevention of future episodes, as well as managing the process of treatment of elderly patients in general. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,405,265
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#223
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,169
of 235,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 235,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 70% of its contemporaries.