↓ Skip to main content

Narrative [corrected] review: bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaws.

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Internal Medicine, May 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Narrative [corrected] review: bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaws.
Published in
Annals of Internal Medicine, May 2006
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00009
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Osteonecrosis of the jaws is a recently described adverse side effect of bisphosphonate therapy. Patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic carcinoma to the skeleton who are receiving intravenous, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates are at greatest risk for osteonecrosis of the jaws; these patients represent 94% of published cases. The mandible is more commonly affected than the maxilla (2:1 ratio), and 60% of cases are preceded by a dental surgical procedure. Oversuppression of bone turnover is probably the primary mechanism for the development of this condition, although there may be contributing comorbid factors. All sites of potential jaw infection should be eliminated before bisphosphonate therapy is initiated in these patients to reduce the necessity of subsequent dentoalveolar surgery. Conservative débridement of necrotic bone, pain control, infection management, use of antimicrobial oral rinses, and withdrawal of bisphosphonates are preferable to aggressive surgical measures for treating this condition. The degree of risk for osteonecrosis in patients taking oral bisphosphonates, such as alendronate, for osteoporosis is uncertain and warrants careful monitoring.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 196 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 15 7%
Other 54 27%
Unknown 51 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 57 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 01 July 2026.
All research outputs
#972,387
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Internal Medicine
#2,859
of 16,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,498
of 128,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Internal Medicine
#7
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 128,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.