↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dental auxiliaries for dental care traditionally provided by dentists

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Dental auxiliaries for dental care traditionally provided by dentists
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010076.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom A Dyer, Paul Brocklehurst, Anne-Marie Glenny, Linda Davies, Martin Tickle, Ansy Issac, Peter G Robinson

Abstract

Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 67 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 73 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,879,432
of 12,988,455 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,570
of 10,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,185
of 200,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#112
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,988,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 200,760 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 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 50% of its contemporaries.