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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 15% |
| Spain | 12 | 14% |
| Chile | 7 | 8% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 56 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 25% |
| Scientists | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 266 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 9% |
| Researcher | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 54 | 20% |
| Unknown | 84 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 131 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 86 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 31 January 2022.
All research outputs
#561,925
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,003
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,538
of 223,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 223,301 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 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 91% of its contemporaries.