| Title |
Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease‐free impacted wisdom teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003879.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hossein Ghaeminia, John Perry, Marloes EL Nienhuijs, Verena Toedtling, Marcia Tummers, Theo JM Hoppenreijs, Wil JM Van der Sanden, Theodorus G Mettes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 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 | 18 | 28% |
| Canada | 5 | 8% |
| Chile | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 31% |
| Scientists | 4 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 351 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 73 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 30 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 7% |
| Other | 63 | 18% |
| Unknown | 103 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 171 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 24 | 7% |
| Unknown | 117 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 268. 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 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#137,136
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#251
of 13,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,794
of 349,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 349,637 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 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 97% of its contemporaries.