↓ Skip to main content

Fibrosis Progression in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver vs Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Paired-Biopsy Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
20 X users
patent
9 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1243 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
781 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fibrosis Progression in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver vs Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Paired-Biopsy Studies
Published in
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, April 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.04.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siddharth Singh, Alina M. Allen, Zhen Wang, Larry J. Prokop, Mohammad H. Murad, Rohit Loomba

Abstract

Little is known about differences in rates of fibrosis progression between patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that assessed paired liver biopsy specimens to estimate the rates of fibrosis progression in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) including NAFL and NASH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users 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 781 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 781 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 94 12%
Researcher 94 12%
Student > Master 87 11%
Other 70 9%
Student > Bachelor 55 7%
Other 140 18%
Unknown 241 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 285 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 69 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 3%
Engineering 18 2%
Other 64 8%
Unknown 287 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#895,445
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#304
of 4,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,313
of 245,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#4
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 245,588 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 93% of its contemporaries.