↓ Skip to main content

Etiologic Factors of Chronic Constipation—Review of the Scientific Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences, January 2007
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Etiologic Factors of Chronic Constipation—Review of the Scientific Evidence
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, January 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10620-006-9298-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix W. Leung

Abstract

Geriatric patient educational material and a general practice review suggest insufficient dietary fiber intake, inadequate fluid intake, decrease physical activity, side effects of drugs, hypothyroidism, sex hormones and colorectal cancer obstruction may play a role in the pathogenesis of constipation. A search of recent literature, however, reveals that there is a paucity of evidence-based publications that address the etiologic factors of chronic constipation. Much of current writings on the subject may be based primarily on myths handed down from one generation to the next. In the absence of well-designed studies, there do not appear to be sufficient evidence-based information to implicate the above as major etiologic factors in the development of chronic constipation. The etiological role of each of these factors in the development of chronic constipation deserves to be assessed by modern techniques and methodologies. Funding agencies including the government and industry sponsors should support the development of evidence-based data sets. The understanding of the etiology of chronic constipation is the foundation on which cost-effective management strategies are to be built.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,909,240
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#521
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,620
of 163,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#7
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 163,224 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.