| Title |
Fecal microbiota transplantation: current clinical efficacy and future prospects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceg.s61305 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn A Bowman, Elizabeth K Broussard, Christina M Surawicz |
| Abstract |
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has gained mainstream attention with its remarkable efficacy in treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (RCDI) when there are no other effective therapies. Methods of selecting donors and routes of administration vary among studies, but there are now randomized controlled trials showing efficacy of FMT in treating RCDI. Ongoing trials of FMT for other disease such as inflammatory bowel disease are underway; this therapy should not be used for these conditions unless there is strong evidence for efficacy. Long-term safety data are sorely needed, as well as clarification of regulatory concerns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Belarus | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#767,247
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#8
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,254
of 274,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 274,929 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them