↓ Skip to main content

Current Evidence for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Using Fecal Microbiota Transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Current Infectious Disease Reports, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Current Evidence for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Using Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Published in
Current Infectious Disease Reports, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11908-018-0627-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seong Ran Jeon, Jocelyn Chai, Christiana Kim, Christine H. Lee

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been investigated as a potential treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This review examines current evidence around the efficacy and safety of FMT for patients with IBD. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have suggested that FMT may facilitate clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). Although the evidence for FMT in Crohn's disease (CD) is more limited, positive outcomes have been observed in small cohort studies. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild and included transient gastrointestinal symptoms. Serious adverse events (SAEs) did not differ significantly between the FMT and control groups, and a marginal increased rate of IBD flares following FMT was observed. Microbiota analysis following FMT showed increased intestinal bacterial diversity and a shift towards the donor microbial profile in recipients' stools. FMT for patients with IBD is promising as RCTs have shown the benefit of FMT for UC, although the efficacy of FMT for CD is less clear. Further large and well-designed trials are necessary to resolve critical issues such as the donor selection, the ideal route of administration, duration, frequency of FMT, and the long-term sustained efficacy and safety.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,826,191
of 23,081,466 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#119
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,228
of 330,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,081,466 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 330,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.