↓ Skip to main content

Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 11,178)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 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
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002281.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Munirah Yaacob, Helen V Worthington, Scott A Deacon, Chris Deery, A Damien Walmsley, Peter G Robinson, Anne-Marie Glenny

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 260 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 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 294 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 22%
Student > Bachelor 52 17%
Student > Postgraduate 50 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Researcher 21 7%
Other 52 17%
Unknown 40 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 188 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 46 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 586. 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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#16,044
of 15,424,355 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 11,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154
of 191,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,424,355 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 11,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 191,063 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 207 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 99% of its contemporaries.