↓ Skip to main content

Dietary Interventions and Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Review of the Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Dietary Interventions and Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Review of the Evidence
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11894-016-0517-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shawn L. Shah, Brian E. Lacy

Abstract

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the best studied of the functional gastrointestinal disorders. It is a highly prevalent disorder characterized by symptoms of abdominal pain, bloating, and disordered bowel habits, which may include constipation, diarrhea, or both. IBS has a significant negative impact on patients, both financially and with regard to their quality-of-life. At present, there is no cure for IBS, and while there are a number of pharmacological therapies available to treat IBS symptoms, they are not uniformly effective. For this reason, many patients and providers are turning to dietary interventions in an attempt to ameliorate IBS symptoms. At first glance, this approach appears reasonable as dietary interventions are generally safe and side effects, including potential adverse reactions with medications, are rare. However, although dietary interventions for IBS are frequently recommended, there is a paucity of data to support their use. The goals of this article are to answer key questions about diets currently recommended for the treatment of IBS, using the best available data from the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Professor 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 25 35%
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 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,162
of 366,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 366,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.