↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with failure to thrive: a case–control study

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
<em>Helicobacter pylori</em> infection is not associated with failure to thrive: a case&ndash;control study
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s123148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nan-Chang Chiu, Chien-Yu Lin, Hsin Chi, Chun-Yan Yeung, Wei-Hsin Ting, Wai-Tao Chan, Chuen-Bin Jiang, Sung-Tse Li, Chao-Hsu Lin, Hung-Chang Lee

Abstract

The long-term impact of Helicobacter pylori infection is complex, and concerns about the need for eradication exist. We conducted this case control study to investigate the association between H. pylori infection and failure to thrive (FTT). From January 2009 to December 2011, 53 children with FTT group and matched children with the same sex and age and similar socioeconomic status without FTT (control group) were enrolled. A questionnaire was administered to the parents/guardian, and a (13)C-urea breath test was performed to detect H. pylori infection. We found that the total prevalence of H. pylori infection was 29.2% and that there was no association between FTT and H. pylori infection (FTT group: 32%; control group: 26.4%; P=0.67). Short stature was more common in the FTT group and abdominal pain in the control group (FTT group: 37.7%; control group: 11.3%; P=0.003). In a comparison between the H. pylori-positive and -negative groups, abdominal pain (87.1% vs 64%; P=0.032) and the frequency of endoscopy (74.2% vs 32%; P<0.001) were significantly more common in the H. pylori-positive group. We found that children with H. pylori infection are at an increased risk for abdominal pain and that FTT is not associated with H. pylori infection. The decision for eradication should be evaluated carefully and individualized.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Professor 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%
Neuroscience 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#9,589,919
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#734
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,383
of 251,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 251,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.