↓ Skip to main content

Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004971.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A Deacon, Anne-Marie Glenny, Chris Deery, Peter G Robinson, Mike Heanue, A Damien Walmsley, William C Shaw

Abstract

Powered brushes were first introduced commercially in the 1960s. A recent systematic review suggested the superiority of certain modes of powered over manual toothbrushing for plaque and gingivitis reduction. That review did not allow for direct comparison between different modes of powered toothbrush.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 14%
Australia 1 14%
Chile 1 14%
Malaysia 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 19 271%
Student > Master 17 243%
Student > Bachelor 17 243%
Unspecified 12 171%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 143%
Other 33 471%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 971%
Unspecified 15 214%
Social Sciences 6 86%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 57%
Other 11 157%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 02 February 2019.
All research outputs
#301,663
of 13,501,776 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#803
of 10,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,597
of 97,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,501,776 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 97,724 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 91% of its contemporaries.