↓ Skip to main content

Botulinum toxin for masseter hypertrophy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Botulinum toxin for masseter hypertrophy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007510.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zbys Fedorowicz, Esther J van Zuuren, Jan Schoones

Abstract

Benign masseter muscle hypertrophy is an uncommon clinical phenomenon of uncertain aetiology which is characterised by a soft swelling near the angle of the mandible. The swelling may on occasion be associated with facial pain and can be prominent enough to be considered cosmetically disfiguring. Varying degrees of success have been reported for some of the treatment options for masseter hypertrophy, which range from simple pharmacotherapy to more invasive surgical reduction. Injection of botulinum toxin type A into the masseter muscle is generally considered a less invasive modality and has been advocated for cosmetic sculpting of the lower face. Botulinum toxin type A is a powerful neurotoxin which is produced by the anaerobic organism Clostridium botulinum and when injected into a muscle causes interference with the neurotransmitter mechanism producing selective paralysis and subsequent atrophy of the muscle.This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.

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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 79 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Student > Postgraduate 12 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 63%
Unspecified 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 8 9%

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 10 September 2013.
All research outputs
#10,024,022
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,559
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,087
of 156,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 156,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.