↓ 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Other 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 64%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 23%

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
#1,790,560
of 17,572,152 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,325
of 11,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,055
of 197,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,572,152 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 11,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 197,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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 62% of its contemporaries.