↓ Skip to main content

Current Approach to the Evaluation and Management of Microscopic Colitis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Current Approach to the Evaluation and Management of Microscopic Colitis
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11894-017-0551-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas G. Cotter, Darrell S. Pardi

Abstract

Microscopic colitis is a common cause of chronic watery diarrhea, particularly in the elderly. The accompanying symptoms, which include abdominal pain and fatigue, can markedly impair patients' quality of life. Diagnosis is based upon characteristic histologic findings of the colonic mucosa. This review focuses on the current approach to evaluation and management of patients with microscopic colitis. Although the incidence of microscopic colitis has been increasing over time, recent epidemiological studies show stabilization at 21.0-24.7 cases per 100,000 person-years. Recent research has further expanded our knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology and emphasized the entity of drug-induced microscopic colitis and the association with celiac disease. Two recent randomized studies have confirmed the effectiveness of oral budesonide for both induction and maintenance treatment of microscopic colitis and is now endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association as first-line treatment. The incidence of microscopic colitis has stabilized at just over 20 cases per 100,000 person-years. Celiac disease and drug-induced microscopic colitis should be considered in all patients diagnosed with microscopic colitis. There are a number of treatments available for patients with microscopic colitis; however, budesonide is the only option well studied in controlled trials and is effective for both induction and maintenance treatment.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,726,252
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#298
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,731
of 324,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 324,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.