↓ 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 (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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 95 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Unspecified 11 9%
Other 53 43%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 57%
Unspecified 25 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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
#170,513
of 12,538,991 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#431
of 10,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,561
of 163,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,538,991 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 10,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. 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 163,029 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 111 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 95% of its contemporaries.