↓ Skip to main content

Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with periodontal disease and the effectiveness of interventions in decreasing this risk: protocol for systematic overview of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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.
Title
Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with periodontal disease and the effectiveness of interventions in decreasing this risk: protocol for systematic overview of systematic reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0195-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sizzle F. Vanterpool, Kathleen Tomsin, Leticia Reyes, Luc J. Zimmermann, Boris W. Kramer, Jasper V. Been

Abstract

Periodontal disease is an inflammatory disease of the tissues supporting the teeth. Women who have periodontal disease while pregnant may be at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although the association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes has been addressed in a considerable number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, there are important differences in the conclusions of these reviews. Systematic reviews assessing the effectivity of various therapeutic interventions to treat periodontal disease during pregnancy to try and reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes have also arrived at different conclusions. We aim to provide a systematic overview of systematic reviews comparing the frequency of adverse pregnancy outcomes between women with and without periodontal disease and/or evaluating the effect of preventive and therapeutic interventions for periodontal disease before or during pregnancy on adverse pregnancy outcomes. We will include systematic reviews reporting on studies comparing adverse pregnancy outcomes: (i) between women with or without periodontal disease before (<6 months) or during pregnancy and/or (ii) according to preventive or therapeutic interventions for periodontal disease. Eligible interventions include (combinations of) the following: oral hygiene education, use of antibiotics, subgingival scaling, and root planing. For preventive and/or therapeutic reviews, the following comparisons will be considered: no intervention, a placebo intervention, or an alternative intervention. Our primary adverse pregnancy outcomes of interests are maternal mortality, preterm delivery, and perinatal mortality. Two reviewers will independently identify eligible published and unpublished systematic reviews from six electronic databases and using hand searching of reference lists and citations. Data items extracted from included systematic reviews are based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care checklist and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. In our narrative data synthesis, we will consider risk of bias of individual reviews, focusing mainly on the conclusions of the highest quality reviews using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Disagreements during search, selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be resolved through discussion and/or consultation of a third reviewer. PROSPERO CRD42015030132.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 49 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 50 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,910,571
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,129
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,166
of 397,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 397,506 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 73 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 57% of its contemporaries.