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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 30% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 52% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 39% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 19 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,473,249
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#243
of 6,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,611
of 315,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#5
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 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 6,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 315,844 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 95% of its contemporaries.