↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
94 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003813.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Glenny, Richard Oliver, Graham J Roberts, Lee Hooper, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart with a high mortality rate.Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia and it was believed that this may lead to bacterial endocarditis (BE) in a few people. Guidelines in many countries have recommended that prior to invasive dental procedures antibiotics are administered to people at high risk of endocarditis. However, recent guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales has recommended that antibiotics are not required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 18%
Student > Postgraduate 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 29 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 32 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#222,629
of 14,308,102 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#520
of 10,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,890
of 167,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,308,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 167,961 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.