| Title |
Practical guide to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency – Breaking the myths
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0783-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maarten R. Struyvenberg, Camilia R. Martin, Steven D. Freedman |
| Abstract |
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is characterized by a deficiency of exocrine pancreatic enzymes, resulting in malabsorption. Numerous conditions account for the etiology of EPI, with the most common being diseases of the pancreatic parenchyma including chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, and a history of extensive necrotizing acute pancreatitis. Treatment for EPI includes dietary management, lifestyle changes (i.e., decrease in alcohol consumption and smoking cessation), and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. Many diagnostic tests are available to diagnose EPI, however, the criteria of choice remain unclear and the causes for a false-positive test are not yet understood. Despite multiple studies on the treatment of EPI using exogenous pancreatic enzymes, there remains confusion amongst medical practitioners with regard to the best approach to diagnose EPI, as well as dosing and administration of pancreatic enzymes. Appropriate use of diagnostics and treatment approaches using pancreatic enzymes in EPI is essential for patients. This opinion piece aims to address the existing myths, remove the current confusion, and function as a practical guide to the diagnosis and treatment of EPI. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 312 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 10% |
| Researcher | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 8% |
| Other | 46 | 15% |
| Unknown | 96 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 87 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 8% |
| Unknown | 102 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,556,760
of 24,483,002 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,230
of 3,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,655
of 431,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#43
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,483,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 431,172 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.