↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Interventions for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Interventions for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006538.pub2
Pubmed ID
20393948
Authors

Mohammad O Sharif, Zbys Fedorowicz, Peter Drews, Mona Nasser, Mojtaba Dorri, Tim Newton, Richard Oliver

Abstract

Fractures of the condylar process account for between 25% and 35% of all mandibular fractures. Treatment options for fractures of the condyles consist of either the closed method or by open reduction with fixation. Complications may be associated with either treatment option; for the closed approach these can include malocclusion, particularly open bites, reduced posterior facial height and facial asymmetry in addition to chronic pain and reduced mobility. A cutaneous scar and temporary paralysis of the facial nerve are not infrequent complications associated with the open approach. There is a lack of consensus currently surrounding the indications for either surgical or non-surgical treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 25%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 23 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,723,497
of 14,668,766 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,390
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,150
of 154,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,668,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 154,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.