↓ Skip to main content

Critique of the review of 'Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries' published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015

Overview of attention for article published in British Dental Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Critique of the review of 'Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries' published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015
Published in
British Dental Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.257
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. J. Rugg-Gunn, A. J. Spencer, H. P. Whelton, C. Jones, J. F. Beal, P. Castle, P. V. Cooney, J. Johnson, M. P. Kelly, M. A. Lennon, J. McGinley, D. O'Mullane, H. D. Sgan-Cohen, P. P. Sharma, W. M. Thomson, S. M. Woodward, S. P. Zusman

Abstract

The Cochrane Review on water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries was published in 2015 and attracted considerable interest and comment, especially in countries with extensive water fluoridation programmes. The Review had two objectives: (i) to evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries, and (ii) to evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis. The authors concluded, inter alia, that there was very little contemporary evidence, meeting the Review's inclusion criteria, that evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. The purpose of this critique is to examine the conduct of the above Review, and to put it into context in the wider body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of water fluoridation. While the overall conclusion that water fluoridation is effective in caries prevention agrees with previous reviews, many important public health questions could not be answered by the Review because of the restrictive criteria used to judge adequacy of study design and risk of bias. The potential benefits of using wider criteria in order to achieve a fuller understanding of the effectiveness of water fluoridation are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 41%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 30 August 2019.
All research outputs
#778,103
of 14,070,574 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#204
of 4,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,791
of 263,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#5
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,070,574 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 263,255 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 94% of its contemporaries.