↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006334.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul F Ashley, Catherine ECS Williams, David R Moles, Jennifer Parry

Abstract

A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015. We will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.Morbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest. In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction. We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings. In our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible. Randomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 93 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 37%
Psychology 7 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,934,488
of 18,891,791 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,484
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,552
of 259,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,891,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 259,547 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.