↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2021
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005620.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen V Worthington, Sara Khangura, Kelsey Seal, Monika Mierzwinski-Urban, Analia Veitz-Keenan, Philipp Sahrmann, Patrick Roger Schmidlin, Dell Davis, Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor, María Graciela Rasines Alcaraz

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Unspecified 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 45%
Unspecified 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 26 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 25 April 2022.
All research outputs
#905,168
of 21,271,011 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,082
of 12,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,744
of 340,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,271,011 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 12,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 340,531 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 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.