↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

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.
Title
Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses
Published in
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2013
DOI 10.1590/1678-7757201302326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Navarro1, Ricardo de Lima, Oltramari-Navarro2, Paula Vanessa Pedron, Fernandes2, Thais Maria Freire, Oliveira3, Giovani Fidelis de, Conti2, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira, Almeida2, Marcio Rodrigues de, Almeida2, Renato Rodrigues de, Navarro1, Ricardo de Lima, Oltramari-Navarro2, Paula Vanessa Pedron, Fernandes2, Thais Maria Freire, Oliveira3, Giovani Fidelis de, Conti2, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira, Almeida2, Marcio Rodrigues de, Almeida2, Renato Rodrigues de

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of three different methods of cephalometric analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 11 23%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 73%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#3,560,362
of 5,040,289 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#76
of 140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,025
of 93,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,040,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 140 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 93,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.