↓ Skip to main content

Update on Rome IV Criteria for Colorectal Disorders: Implications for Clinical Practice

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 368)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
206 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
325 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
Update on Rome IV Criteria for Colorectal Disorders: Implications for Clinical Practice
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11894-017-0554-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magnus Simren, Olafur S. Palsson, William E. Whitehead

Abstract

The purpose of the review was to provide an update of the Rome IV criteria for colorectal disorders with implications for clinical practice. The Rome diagnostic criteria are expert consensus criteria for diagnosing functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). The current version, Rome IV, was released in May of 2016 after Rome III had been in effect for a decade. It is the collective product of committees that included more than 100 leading functional GI experts. For functional bowel and anorectal disorders, the majority of changes relative to Rome III are relatively minor and will have little impact on clinical practice. However, notable changes with potential impact on clinical practice and research include the changes in the diagnostic criteria for IBS, the modified approach for subtyping of IBS, the view on functional bowel disorders as a spectrum of disorders, and the new definition of fecal incontinence. New features in the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for functional bowel and anorectal disorders will likely have modest influence on clinical practice, with a few exceptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 325 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 41 13%
Researcher 35 11%
Other 32 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 7%
Other 54 17%
Unknown 98 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 30 9%
Unknown 108 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,852,542
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#41
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,320
of 323,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 323,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them