↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Operative caries management in adults and children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
246 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Operative caries management in adults and children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003808.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Ricketts, Thomas Lamont, Nicola PT Innes, Edwina Kidd, Jan E Clarkson

Abstract

The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

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 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Dominican Republic 1 <1%
Unknown 341 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 20%
Student > Postgraduate 44 13%
Student > Bachelor 41 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 60 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 229 66%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Materials Science 5 1%
Other 20 6%
Unknown 71 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#941,763
of 18,891,791 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,349
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,108
of 167,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,891,791 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 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 167,676 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.