↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Comparison of Reliability of Categorical and Continuous Scales for Radiographic Assessments of Bone Infill Following Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting
Published in
Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, December 2017
DOI 10.1177/1055665617723922
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To investigate examiner reliability of scoring intraoral radiographs of bone infill following secondary bone grafting using a categorical scale (modified Kindelan Index) and a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). To investigate the level of clinical experience on the reliability of these assessments. Retrospective study involving 10 clinicians of varying clinical experience who were blind to the patient's identity. All grafting was carried out within the New Zealand public hospital service. Fifty-eight grafts (48 UCLP and 5 BCLP) were assessed with 14 duplicated radiographs randomly added to the sample, making a total of 72 radiographs for assessment. Weighted kappa was used for intra- and interrater examiner reliability for the categorical scale and correlations for the VAS. Relatively poor intrarater examiner agreement for categorical scoring (median 0.46) was found. Clinicians with greater experience generally recording higher intrarater weighted kappa. The intrarater correlations for the continuous scale (median 0.89) suggest better consistency regardless of the level of experience. The interrater relationships were generally low, with an average of weighted kappa of 0.25 while the overall average VAS correlation was 0.49. For the majority of scorers, there was a relationship between the VAS and the Kindelan Index, with lower VAS scores related to worse Kindelan scores. The use of a VAS produced better intra- and interexaminer reliability than the categorical Kindelan Index and was more consistent despite the level of clinical experience. Further evaluation of the validity of the VAS for the assessment of bone infill is warranted.

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.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 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 %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Unknown 22 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#24,742,964
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal
#717
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#336,752
of 490,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal
#40
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,571 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 490,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 74% of its contemporaries.