↓ Skip to main content

Fighting Fire with Fire: Is it Time to Use Probiotics to Manage Pathogenic Bacterial Diseases?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Fighting Fire with Fire: Is it Time to Use Probiotics to Manage Pathogenic Bacterial Diseases?
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11894-012-0274-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Heineman, Sara Bubenik, Stephen McClave, Robert Martindale

Abstract

Probiotics, when considered in clinical practice, have traditionally been used for prophylaxis; however, there is growing data suggesting treatment benefits in numerous disease states. In this review, we focus on probiotics as treatment for and prevention of several acute and chronic infectious processes including Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile, necrotizing enterocolitis, ventilator-associated pneumonia, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. It is inaccurate to generalize findings observed in a single probiotic species to all probiotics. This reasoning is due to the variability of colonizing abilities of native intestinal floras, probiotic or otherwise, secondary to different combinations, doses, and duration of treatments. Given these limitations, multiple animal and human studies have shown anti-inflammatory and selective antimicrobial effects of specific probiotics. Some studies suggest a role for probiotics as supplemental treatment, in combination with antibiotics, for the aforementioned disease processes. It is apparent from this review that the efficacy of probiotics is widely variable and multifaceted. More focused clinical and basic science research is necessary to better understand the treatment potential of various probiotics.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,394
of 177,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 177,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.