| Title |
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Beyond Clostridium difficile
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Infectious Disease Reports, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11908-017-0586-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Braden Millan, Michael Laffin, Karen Madsen |
| Abstract |
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been established as standard of care in the treatment of antibiotic refractory Clostridium difficile infection (RCDI). This review examines the current evidence that exists to support the use of FMT in the treatment of human disease beyond C. difficile infection. Beneficial effects of FMT have been described in case series or small prospective trials on a wide spectrum of conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, functional gastrointestinal disorders, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic hepatitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and neuropsychiatric conditions, and in limiting antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Each of these proposed indications for FMT is associated with an underlying dysbiosis of the gastrointestinal microbiota and generally a clinical response is linked with a restoration of the gut microbiota. The potential of fecal microbial transplantation to alter disease course shows promise but further large-scale studies are necessary to understand limitations as well as how best to utilize this therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 States | 3 | 38% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Brazil | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 32% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 13 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,170,066
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#17
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,686
of 317,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 317,651 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.