↓ Skip to main content

Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005512.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Innes NP, Ricketts DN, Evans DJ

Abstract

Preformed metal crowns (PMCs) are recommended by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) for restoring badly broken down primary molar teeth. However, few dental practitioners adopt this technique in clinical practice, citing cost and clinical difficulty as reasons for this. Whilst there is a subjective impression by clinical academics that PMCs provide a more durable restoration than filling materials, there appears to be little evidence within the literature to support this.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,689,254
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,991
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,701
of 199,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 199,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.