↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
426 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008397.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Pietro Felice, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant-supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with autogenous bone or commercially available biomaterials, or both. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 426 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 416 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 89 21%
Student > Postgraduate 55 13%
Student > Bachelor 48 11%
Researcher 35 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 8%
Other 84 20%
Unknown 82 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 269 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Psychology 7 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 24 6%
Unknown 97 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 December 2018.
All research outputs
#711,924
of 16,277,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,886
of 11,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,545
of 191,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,277,929 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 11,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 191,833 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.