| Title |
Donor Considerations in Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Gastroenterology Reports, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11894-017-0548-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle Barnes, K. T. Park |
| Abstract |
Tremendous acceleration has been made in understanding the gut microbiota in the past decade and, with it, further understanding of the pathologic role of dysbiosis and the use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as therapy. FMT has been studied in many disease states including the most common indication of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), though many questions regarding stool donor selection remain. Though traditionally, one donor has provided stool for one patient, research is underway to explore many donor selection considerations from the use of pooled donor stool to selection of a high diversity donor. It is well-known that dietary intake shapes the gut microbiota and the potential implications of this on FMT donor selection are being explored. Though further high-quality research is needed, optimizing the fecal microbiota inoculum holds great promise. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
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 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,726,252
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#298
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,628
of 322,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 322,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them