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 |
Interventions in the Alteration on Lingual Frenum: Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0035-1568135 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Priscilla Poliseni Miranda, Carolina Louise Cardoso, Erissandra Gomes |
| Abstract |
Altered lingual frenum modifies the normal tongue mobility, which may influence the stomatognathic functions, resulting in anatomical, physiological and social damage to the subject. It is necessary that health professionals are aware of the process of evaluation, diagnostics and treatment used today, guiding their intervention. To perform a systematic review of what are the treatment methods used in cases of lingual frenum alteration. The literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, Cochrane and IBECS, delimited by language (Portuguese, English, Spanish), date of publication (January 2000 to January 2014) and studies performed in humans. The selection order used to verify the eligibility of the studies were related to: full text availability; review the abstract; text analysis; final selection. Of the total 443 publications, 26 remained for analysis. The surgical approach was used in all studies, regardless of the study population (infants, children and adults), with a range of tools and techniques employed; speech therapy was recommended in the post surgical in 4 studies. Only 4 studies, all with infants, showed scientific evidence. Surgical intervention is effective for the remission of the limitations caused by the alteration on lingual frenum, but there is a deficit of studies with higher methodological quality. The benefits of speech therapy in the post surgical period are described from improvement in the language of mobility aspects and speech articulation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#224
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,749
of 388,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 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 646 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 388,817 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 64% of its contemporaries.