↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
Title
Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004971.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A Deacon, Anne-Marie Glenny, Chris Deery, Peter G Robinson, Mike Heanue, A Damien Walmsley, William C Shaw

Abstract

Powered brushes were first introduced commercially in the 1960s. A recent systematic review suggested the superiority of certain modes of powered over manual toothbrushing for plaque and gingivitis reduction. That review did not allow for direct comparison between different modes of powered toothbrush.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 36 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#461,564
of 17,368,632 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,064
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,039
of 110,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,368,632 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 110,311 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.