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 |
Reliability and reproducibility of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks using CBCT: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-775720140336 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cinthia de Oliveira Lisboa, Daniele Masterson, Andréa Fonseca Jardim da Motta, Alexandre Trindade Motta |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review the reliability and reproducibility of 3D-CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) cephalometric landmark identification. Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for papers published from 1998 to October 2014. Specific strategies were developed for each database, with the guidance of a librarian. Two reviewers independently analyzed the titles and abstracts for inclusion. The articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for full-text reading, and the selected articles went through methodological quality evaluation. After the exclusion of repeated articles, the titles of the remaining ones were read and 1,328 of them were excluded. The abstracts of 173 articles were read, of which 43 were selected, read in full and submitted to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen articles or studies with reliable methodology and reproducibility remained. The data were collected, organized into figures and analyzed for determination of the reliability and reproducibility of the three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks. Overall, the landmarks on the median sagittal line and dental landmarks had the highest reliability, while the landmarks on the condyle, porion and the orbitale presented lower levels of reliability. Point S must be marked in the multiplanar views associated with visualization in 3D reconstruction. Further studies are necessary for evaluating soft tissue landmarks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 24% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,840,561
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#203
of 598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,889
of 360,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 598 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 64% 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 360,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 66% of its contemporaries.