↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Linaclotide: evidence for its potential use in irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation

Overview of attention for article published in Core Evidence, June 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Linaclotide: evidence for its potential use in irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation
Published in
Core Evidence, June 2012
DOI 10.2147/ce.s25240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noel Lee, Arnold Wald

Abstract

Both irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), characterized by chronic and recurrent abdominal pain and altered bowel habits, and functional constipation are highly prevalent gastrointestinal problems for which many patients seek medical advice. A diverse number of treatment approaches are currently recommended to treat persons with chronic constipation as well as patients with IBS in which constipation is the main gastrointestinal symptom (IBS-C). These approaches have had somewhat limited success, and many patients remain dissatisfied with available therapy. Recently, linaclotide, a novel intestinal secretagogue, which works by activating the guanylate cyclase C receptor on the luminal surface of the intestinal epithelium, has been demonstrated to be efficacious in patients with both chronic functional constipation and with IBS-C in a series of randomized, placebo-controlled studies in these populations. Evidence for this assertion is provided in this systematic review of the pharmacologic properties of this novel agent and the published pivotal studies which support the efficacy of this agent in targeted populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Psychology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,415,510
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Core Evidence
#9
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,039
of 179,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Core Evidence
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 179,215 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 5 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