↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumours
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008464.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharif FNj, Oliver R, Sweet C, Sharif MO

Abstract

The keratocystic odontogenic tumours (KCOTs) account for between about 2% and 11% of all jaw cysts and can occur at any age. They are more common in males than females with a male:female ratio of approximately 2:1. Although they are benign, KCOTs are locally very aggressive and have a tendency to recur after treatment, reported recurrence rates range from 3% to 60%. The traditional method for the treatment of most KCOTs is surgical enucleation. However, due to the lining of the cyst being delicate and the fact that they frequently recur, this method alone is not sufficient. Adjunctive surgical treatment has been proposed in addition to the surgical enucleation, such as removal of the peripheral bone (ostectomy) or resection of the cyst with surrounding bone (en-bloc) resection. Other adjunctive treatments proposed are: cryotherapy (freezing) with liquid nitrogen and the use of the fixative Carnoy's solution placed in the cyst cavity after enucleation; both of which attempt to address residual tissue to prevent recurrence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 58%
Unspecified 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,508,489
of 23,569,120 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,247
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,669
of 96,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,569,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 96,831 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 68% of its contemporaries.