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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile
|
---|---|
Published in |
New England Journal of Medicine, January 2013
|
DOI | 10.1056/nejmoa1205037 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Els van Nood, Anne Vrieze, Max Nieuwdorp, Susana Fuentes, Erwin G Zoetendal, Willem M de Vos, Caroline E Visser, Ed J Kuijper, Joep F W M Bartelsman, Jan G P Tijssen, Peter Speelman, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Josbert J Keller |
Abstract |
Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection is difficult to treat, and failure rates for antibiotic therapy are high. We studied the effect of duodenal infusion of donor feces in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 931 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 187 | 20% |
United Kingdom | 59 | 6% |
Japan | 52 | 6% |
Canada | 40 | 4% |
Spain | 33 | 4% |
Australia | 22 | 2% |
Netherlands | 20 | 2% |
Mexico | 17 | 2% |
France | 14 | 2% |
Other | 153 | 16% |
Unknown | 334 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 678 | 73% |
Scientists | 121 | 13% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 118 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 14 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,800 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 29 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 16 | <1% |
Japan | 10 | <1% |
Canada | 9 | <1% |
Denmark | 7 | <1% |
Brazil | 7 | <1% |
Germany | 6 | <1% |
France | 6 | <1% |
Spain | 6 | <1% |
Other | 25 | <1% |
Unknown | 2679 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 436 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 382 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 375 | 13% |
Student > Master | 297 | 11% |
Other | 248 | 9% |
Other | 585 | 21% |
Unknown | 477 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 961 | 34% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 470 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 279 | 10% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 174 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 62 | 2% |
Other | 267 | 10% |
Unknown | 587 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2045. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,468
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#260
of 32,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12
of 293,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#4
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 293,980 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 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 99% of its contemporaries.