↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Magnification devices for endodontic therapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005969.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, Lodi G, Banfi G, Weinstein RL

Abstract

After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics, involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a continuous search for enhancing the visualisation of the surgical field. It would be interesting to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices like surgical microscope, endoscope and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient, in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 3 14%
Unknown 19 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 32%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 23%
Other 3 14%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 77%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 May 2014.
All research outputs
#2,821,038
of 12,339,596 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,431
of 8,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,657
of 198,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,339,596 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 198,049 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.