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 |
Validity of Sealant Retention as Surrogate for Caries Prevention – A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0077103 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal |
| Abstract |
To appraise the clinical literature in determining whether loss of complete sealant retention as surrogate endpoint is directly associated with caries occurrence on sealed teeth as its clinical endpoint and to apply the appraised evidence in testing the null-hypothesis that the retention/caries ratio between different types of sealant materials (resin and glass-ionomer cement) is not statistically significant (= Prentice criterion for surrogate endpoint validity). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 58% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 33 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 October 2014.
All research outputs
#2,908,438
of 23,989,432 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,727
of 205,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,817
of 216,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#908
of 5,118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,989,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 205,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 216,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.