↓ Skip to main content

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
138 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004624.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund Bailey, Helen V Worthington, Arjen van Wijk, Julian M Yates, Paul Coulthard, Zahid Afzal

Abstract

Both paracetamol and ibuprofen are commonly used analgesics for the relief of pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth (third molars). In 2010, a novel analgesic (marketed as Nuromol) containing both paracetamol and ibuprofen in the same tablet was launched in the United Kingdom, this drug has shown promising results to date and we have chosen to also compare the combined drug with the single drugs using this model. In this review we investigated the optimal doses of both paracetamol and ibuprofen via comparison of both and via comparison with the novel combined drug. We have taken into account the side effect profile of the study drugs. This review will help oral surgeons to decide on which analgesic to prescribe following wisdom tooth removal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 138 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 25%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Psychology 1 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 13%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 21 November 2018.
All research outputs
#114,241
of 13,557,740 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#243
of 10,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,862
of 252,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,557,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 252,269 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 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 97% of its contemporaries.