↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a synbiotic on fecal quality, short-chain fatty acid concentrations, and the microbiome of healthy sled dogs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Effects of a synbiotic on fecal quality, short-chain fatty acid concentrations, and the microbiome of healthy sled dogs
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-9-246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason W Gagné, Joseph J Wakshlag, Kenneth W Simpson, Scot E Dowd, Shalini Latchman, Dawn A Brown, Kit Brown, Kelly S Swanson, George C Fahey

Abstract

Sled dogs commonly suffer from diarrhea. Although multiple etiologies exist there are limited field studies using synbiotics as a supplement to prevent or treat diarrhea. The objective of this study was to examine alterations in fecal quality, short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), and the fecal microbiome in two groups of training sled dogs fed a synbiotic or microcrystalline cellulose placebo. Twenty clinically healthy training sled dogs randomized into two cohorts (9 synbiotic-fed, 8 placebo-fed) for a 6 week prospective study were examined. Fecal pH and fecal short chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations were measured and tag-encoded FLX 16S rDNA amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) and quantitative real-time PCR were performed at baseline (10 d prior to the study) and after 2 weeks of treatment with a total treatment time of 6 weeks. Fecal scores for all dogs were assessed at baseline and every day for 6 wk after initiation of treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Master 23 17%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 11 8%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 37 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 32 24%
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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,193,359
of 24,953,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#511
of 3,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,594
of 320,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#10
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,953,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,247 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 320,216 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.