↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for the treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Interventions for the treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumours
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008464.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fyeza NJ Sharif, Richard Oliver, Christopher Sweet, Mohammad O Sharif

Abstract

The keratocystic odontogenic tumours (KCOTs) account for between about 2% and 11% of all jaw cysts and can occur at any age. They are more common in males than females with a male:female ratio of approximately 2:1. Although they are benign, KCOTs are locally very aggressive and have a tendency to recur after treatment. Reported recurrence rates range from 3% to 60%. The traditional method for the treatment of most KCOTs is surgical enucleation. However, due to the lining of the cyst being delicate and the fact that they frequently recur, this method alone is not sufficient. Adjunctive surgical treatment has been proposed in addition to the surgical enucleation, such as removal of the peripheral bone (ostectomy) or resection of the cyst with surrounding bone (en-bloc) resection. Other adjunctive treatments proposed are: cryotherapy (freezing) with liquid nitrogen and the use of the fixative Carnoy's solution placed in the cyst cavity after enucleation; both of which attempt to address residual tissue to prevent recurrence. To assess the available evidence comparing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of KCOTs. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 17 March 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 17 March 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials comparing one modality of intervention with another with or without adjunctive treatment for the treatment of KCOTs. Adults, over the age of 18 with a validated diagnosis of solitary KCOTs arising in the jaw bones of the maxilla or mandible. Patients with known Gorlin syndrome were to be excluded. Review authors screened trials for inclusion. Full papers were obtained for relevant and potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, it would have been synthesised using the fixed-effect model, if substantial clinical diversity were identified between studies we planned to use the random-effects model with studies grouped by action provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, and we would have explored the heterogeneity between the included studies. No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question, therefore no conclusions could be reached about the effectiveness or otherwise of the interventions considered in this review. There is a need for well designed and conducted randomised controlled trials to evaluate treatments for KCOTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Egypt 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 69%
Student > Bachelor 11 69%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 44%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 44%
Other 6 38%
Other 15 94%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 250%
Unspecified 7 44%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 5 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 24 September 2019.
All research outputs
#568,862
of 13,584,320 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,778
of 10,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,989
of 282,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,584,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 282,296 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.