↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
46 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
q&a
2 Q&A threads

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 Mendeley
Title
Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009857.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tina Poklepovic, Helen V Worthington, Trevor M Johnson, Dario Sambunjak, Pauline Imai, Jan E Clarkson, Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life. Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 318 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 18%
Student > Bachelor 45 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 10%
Student > Postgraduate 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 54 17%
Unknown 85 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 184 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 85 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#457,297
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#800
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,278
of 322,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 322,524 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 93% of its contemporaries.