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 |
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for traumatic dental injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dental Traumatology, April 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1111/edt.12838 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ankita Saikia, Sneha S Patil, Muthu Ms, Divyambika Cv, Ram Sabarish, Senthoor Pandian, Robert Anthonappa, Tarun Walia, Moayad Jamal Saeed Al Shahwan |
| Abstract |
Traumatic Dental Injuries (TDI) are considered a public health problem due to their high prevalence and associated physical, economic, psychological and social consequences. Hence, good Clinical Practice Guidelines are essential to achieving a favourable prognosis. The aim of this review was to appraise the existing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on TDI using AGREE II and AGREE-REX. A systematic search for existing guidelines on TDI was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, National Institute for Health Care Excellence, BMJ Best Practice, Trip database, Guideline International Network, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, World Health Organisation, Web of Science and 'Ministry of Health worldwide' databases. Four appraisers independently appraised the included CPGs. The AGREE II tool was applied to assess the methodological quality, while AGREE REX assessed the quality of recommendations of the included guidelines. Of the 7736 titles screened, three guidelines, namely, the International Association of Dental Traumatology Guidelines (IADT), and the Italian and Malaysian guidelines, were included for the final analysis. These guidelines were published between 2019-2020. The AGREE II analysis demonstrated scores above 80% for the IADT and Italian guidelines for the scope and purpose domain. Overall, the Malaysian guidelines achieved the highest score for all domains. The AGREE REX analysis indicated variability in implementation across the nine items, with five that scored above the midpoint of 4.0 on the response scale. Both the Italian and the IADT guidelines had a similar score for the values and preference domains (36.36%). Several deficiencies exist in the methodological quality of existing CPGs on TDI. Future guidelines should consider improvements for domains such as "rigour of development", "stakeholder involvement", and "applicability" to overcome the existing limitations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,334,961
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Dental Traumatology
#64
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,395
of 421,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Traumatology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 421,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.