↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
Title
Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004345.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Coulthard, Edmund Bailey, Marco Esposito, Susan Furness, Tara F Renton, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

The surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is one of the most common operations undertaken in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The most common indication for surgery is infection about a partially erupted tooth that is impacted against bone or soft tissues. Other indications include unrestorable caries, pulpal and periapical pathology, fracture of the tooth and cyst development, amongst others. Most commonly the benefits of surgical removal of a wisdom tooth include alleviation of the symptoms and signs of pericoronitis and its potential consequences. However, surgery is frequently associated with postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less commonly complications include infection, including dry socket, trigeminal nerve injuries and rarely fracture of the mandible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 21%
Student > Bachelor 43 17%
Student > Postgraduate 26 10%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 53 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 63 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 03 January 2019.
All research outputs
#598,752
of 19,144,306 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,363
of 11,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,150
of 204,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,144,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 204,198 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.