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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar: Segmented versus Quad Pendulum appliance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Progress in Orthodontics, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40510-014-0049-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alberto Caprioglio, Mauro Cozzani, Mattia Fontana |
| Abstract |
There are controversial opinions about the effect of erupted second molars on distalization of the first molars. Most of the distalizing devices are anchored on the first molars, without including second molars; so, differences between sequentially distalize maxillary molars (second molar followed by the first molar) or distalize second and first molars together are not clear. The aim of the study was to compare sequential versus simultaneous molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar using two different modified Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
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 06 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#111
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,500
of 241,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 241,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.