↓ Skip to main content

Intestine and Multivisceral Transplantation: Current Status and Future Directions

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Intestine and Multivisceral Transplantation: Current Status and Future Directions
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11894-014-0427-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chandrashekhar A. Kubal, Richard S. Mangus, A. Joseph Tector

Abstract

Intestinal failure and associated parenteral nutrition-induced liver failure cause significant morbidity, mortality, and health care burden. Intestine transplantation is now considered to be the standard of care in patients with intestinal failure who fail intestinal rehabilitation. Intestinal failure-associated liver disease is an important sequela of intestinal failure, caused by parenteral lipids, requiring simultaneous liver-intestine transplant. Lipid minimization and, in recent years, the emergence of fish oil-based lipid emulsions have been shown to reverse parenteral nutrition-associated hyperbilirubinemia, but not fibrosis. Significant progress in surgical techniques and immunosuppression has led to improved outcomes after intestine transplantation. Intestine in varying combination with liver, stomach, and pancreas, also referred to as multivisceral transplantation, is performed for patients with intestinal failure along with liver disease, surgical abdominal catastrophes, neuroendocrine and slow-growing tumors, and complete portomesenteric thrombosis with cirrhosis of the liver. Although acute and chronic rejection are major problems, long-term survivors have excellent quality of life and remain free of parenteral nutrition.

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 January 2015.
All research outputs
#22,830,981
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,806
of 359,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 359,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.