↓ Skip to main content

Probable Correlation between Temporomandibular Dysfunction and Vertigo in the Elderly

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 228)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Probable Correlation between Temporomandibular Dysfunction and Vertigo in the Elderly
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2013
DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1358583
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciana Marchiori, Paula Oltramari-Navarro, Caroline Meneses-Barrivieira, Juliana Melo, Julya Macedo, Juliana Bruniera, Vanessa Gorres, Ricardo Navarro

Abstract

Introduction Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) covers a variety of clinical problems, and some epidemiologic studies have tried to indicate mechanisms of interaction and association between vertigo and TMD, but this topic still is controversial. Objective To assess the presence of vertigo in elderly patients associated with TMD. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted with the inclusion of elderly individuals who lived independently. TMD was assessed by dental evaluation and vertigo was verified by medical history. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and relative risk. Results There was a significant association (p = 0.0256) between the TMD and vertigo (odds ratio = 2.3793). Conclusion These results highlighted the importance of identifying risk factors for vertigo that can be modified through specific interventions, which is essential to prevent future episodes, as well as managing the process of rehabilitation of elderly patients in general.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%

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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,931,433
of 7,931,561 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#11
of 228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,693
of 201,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,931,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 201,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.