↓ 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 11,632)
  • 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
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
367 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 264 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 367 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 358 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 21%
Student > Bachelor 61 17%
Student > Postgraduate 55 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 6%
Other 62 17%
Unknown 62 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 7%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Psychology 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 35 10%
Unknown 64 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 641. 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 22 February 2021.
All research outputs
#16,918
of 17,095,353 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 11,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144
of 195,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,095,353 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 11,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. 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 195,416 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 209 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.