↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Retrospective analysis of a lactose breath test in a gastrointestinal symptomatic population of Northeast Italy: use of (H2+2CH4) versus H2 threshold

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Retrospective analysis of a lactose breath test in a gastrointestinal symptomatic population of Northeast Italy: use of (H2+2CH4) versus H2 threshold
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s163962
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregorio Peron, Stefano Dall’Acqua, Vincenzo Sorrenti, Maria Carrara, Stefano Fortinguerra, Giulia Zorzi, Alessandro Buriani

Abstract

Lactose malabsorption is normally evaluated by measuring exhaled H2 produced by intestinal flora, from unabsorbed lactose. However, differing microbiome composition can lead to the production of CH4 instead of H2; hence, some authors challenge the H2 method sensitivity and favor the evaluation of both intestinal gases. To compare different approaches to usage of a lactose breath test for lactose malabsorption diagnosis, after medical evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms. In a retrospective observational study, we compared the 2 approaches in a population of 282 subjects in Northern Italy. Following oral lactose administration, exhaled samples were harvested every 30 minutes for 4 hours and prepared for H2 and CH4 analysis. Basal gas levels were subtracted from H2 and CH4 ppm and values at 4 hours and peaks were considered for analysis. Applying the standard methodology, which takes separately into consideration H2 and CH4 produced in the intestinal lumen, the results indicated that 11.7% of the patients were diagnosed "positive" for hypolactasia, differently from what was expected. Conversely, taking into consideration the sum of H2 and CH4, the percentage increased to 62.8%, closer to the expected one. No significant differences were found when comparing the 2 groups for age, gender, or symptoms. The sizable difference between the 2 approaches is likely linked to gut microbiome variability, and consequently the different production of the 2 gases, in the population. The threshold normally used for lactose breath test should be reconsidered and changed, merging H2 and CH4 stoichiometric values to increase sensitivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 25%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,885,943
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#98
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,784
of 330,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 330,321 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.