| Title |
Effects of colonic electrical stimulation using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites on gastrointestinal transit time, defecation, and food intake
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-015-2457-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shuo Chen, Liang Liu, Xiaojuan Guo, Shukun Yao, Yanmei Li, Shaoxuan Chen, Yanli Zhang, Wang Chen, Yuhui Du |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) on gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), energy consumption, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites. Eight beagle dogs underwent surgery and CES. First, CES was conducted to determine the individual parameters with different pulse configurations, based on symptoms. Second, influences on energy consumption and GITT were compared between CES sessions with different pulse configurations. Third, GITT, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake were compared to assess the effects of CES at different stimulation sites. The individual parameters varied greatly among the dogs. In proximal colon electrical stimulation (PCES) and rectosigmoid colon electrical stimulation (RCES), energy consumption was lower with the constant pulse width mode than with the constant pulse amplitude mode (p = 0.012 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the two pulse configurations in GITT assessment. The PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions significantly accelerated GITT compared to sham stimulation. There was no statistical difference in GITT between PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions. Compared to sham CES session, RCES and sequential CES sessions exhibited significant higher stool frequency (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), and PCES and RCES sessions inhibited food intake (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). Constant pulse width mode is an appropriate pulse configuration for individual CES. At different stimulation sites, CES may exert different effects on stool frequency and food intake. This study provides an experimental basis for the clinical application of CES. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 33% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 67% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,430
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,093
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#33
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,832 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.