↓ Skip to main content

Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
55 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
2 Q&A threads

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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
Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009857.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tina Poklepovic, Helen V Worthington, Trevor M Johnson, Dario Sambunjak, Pauline Imai, Jan E Clarkson, Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life. Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 218 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 21%
Student > Bachelor 42 19%
Unspecified 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Student > Postgraduate 25 11%
Other 55 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 63%
Unspecified 35 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 25 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#161,860
of 13,526,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#362
of 10,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,805
of 255,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,526,311 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 10,627 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 96% 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 255,022 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 164 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.