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 |
Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-7757201302326 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo de Lima Navarro, Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro, Thais Maria Freire Fernandes, Giovani Fidelis de Oliveira, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti, Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida, Renato Rodrigues de Almeida |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of three different methods of cephalometric analysis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
| Egypt | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
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 27 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#216
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,680
of 212,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 212,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.