↓ Skip to main content

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
connotea
3 Connotea
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.
Title
Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002284
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valeria CC Marinho, Julian PT Higgins, Stuart Logan, Aubrey Sheiham, Marinho, V C C, Higgins, J P T, Logan, S, Sheiham, A, Marinho, Valeria CC, Higgins, Julian PT, Logan, Stuart, Sheiham, Aubrey, Marinho VCC; Higgins JPT; Logan S; Sheiham A

Abstract

Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and individually at home. To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses. Thirty-six studies were included. For the 34 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 14,600 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 26% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not substantial, but confirmed statistically (p = 0.008). No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency and fluoride concentration was found in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 34 studies indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. There is little information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of treatment in the included trials. This review suggests that the supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse at two main strengths and rinsing frequencies is associated with a clear reduction in caries increment in children. In populations with caries increment of 0.25 D(M)FS per year, 16 children will need to use a fluoride mouthrinse (rather than a non-fluoride rinse) to avoid one D(M)FS; in populations with a caries increment of 2.14 D(M)FS per year, 2 children will need to rinse to avoid one D(M)FS. There is a need for complete reporting of side effects and acceptability data in fluoride mouthrinse trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 94 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 26 26%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 73%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 12 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 24 January 2016.
All research outputs
#481,527
of 13,956,301 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,419
of 10,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,835
of 248,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 509 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,956,301 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 248,135 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 509 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.