↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
294 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005293.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Coulthard, Evgeny Kushnerev, Julian M Yates, Tanya Walsh, Neil Patel, Edmund Bailey, Tara F Renton

Abstract

Iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both is a known complication of oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. Injury to these two branches of the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve may result in altered sensation associated with the ipsilateral lower lip or tongue or both and may include anaesthesia, paraesthesia, dysaesthesia, hyperalgesia, allodynia, hypoaesthesia and hyperaesthesia. Injury to the lingual nerve may also affect taste perception on the affected side of the tongue. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of these injuries are temporary in nature and resolve within eight weeks. However, if the injury persists beyond six months it is deemed to be permanent. Surgical, medical and psychological techniques have been used as a treatment for such injuries, though at present there is no consensus on the preferred intervention, or the timing of the intervention.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Student > Postgraduate 25 9%
Researcher 20 7%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 80 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 48%
Psychology 13 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 1%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 94 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 04 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,068,538
of 22,155,376 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,451
of 12,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,214
of 205,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,155,376 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 12,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 205,786 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.