↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Does the Internet promote the unregulated use of fecal microbiota transplantation: a potential public health issue?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Does the Internet promote the unregulated use of fecal microbiota transplantation: a potential public health issue?
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s159609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Philip Segal, Faisal Abbasi, Cynthia Kanagasundaram, Ailsa Hart

Abstract

The Internet has become an increasingly popular resource for medical information. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has changed the treatment of Clostridium difficile with cure rates of 81% following one infusion of FMT, further studies have since validated these findings. The Medicines and Health care Products Regulatory Agency has classified FMT as a medicine and hence should be only utilized in strict clinical settings. We searched Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube using the words "Faecal Microbiota Transplantation" and "FMT". We utilized the first 50 hits on each site. We analyzed the percentage of articles that fell outside regulated medical practice. We searched how many clinics in the UK advertised practice that falls outside suggested guidelines. Google, YouTube, and Facebook had a variety of information regarding FMT available. Nine out of 50 (18%) of the top 50 google searches can be considered articles that fall outside regulated practice. YouTube highlighted four videos describing how to self-administer FMT, one of these was for ulcerative colitis. Fourteen percent of the top 50 YouTube videos fall outside regulated practice and 8% of the top 50 Facebook searches fall outside regulated clinical practice. There were two clinics in the UK advertising FMT for uses that fall outside regulated practice. Clinicians and patients need to be aware of the resources available through social media and the Internet. It should be appreciated that some websites fall outside regulated clinical practice. Private clinics offering FMT need to ensure that they are offering FMT within a regulated framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 11%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#8,017,172
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#122
of 320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,505
of 330,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 330,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.