↓ 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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
30 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
503 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 30 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 503 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%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 493 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 19%
Student > Postgraduate 61 12%
Student > Bachelor 56 11%
Researcher 38 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 7%
Other 95 19%
Unknown 121 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 297 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Psychology 8 2%
Engineering 7 1%
Other 32 6%
Unknown 139 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 02 July 2022.
All research outputs
#967,082
of 21,702,786 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,216
of 12,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,403
of 204,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,702,786 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 12,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 204,504 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 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.