↓ Skip to main content

Fibrosis Assessment in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) in 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Fibrosis Assessment in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) in 2016
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10620-016-4079-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dharmesh H. Kaswala, Michelle Lai, Nezam H. Afdhal

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a spectrum of liver pathologies characterized by hepatic steatosis with a history of little to no alcohol consumption or secondary causes of hepatic steatosis. The prevalence of NAFLD is 20-25 % of the general population in the Western countries and is associated with metabolic risk factors such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. The spectrum of disease ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis. Advanced fibrosis is the most significant predictor of mortality in NAFLD. It is crucial to assess for the presence and degree of hepatic fibrosis in order to make therapeutic decisions and predict clinical outcomes. Liver biopsy, the current gold standard to assess the liver fibrosis, has a number of drawbacks such as invasiveness, sampling error, cost, and inter-/intra-observer variability. There are currently available a number of noninvasive tests as an alternative to liver biopsy for fibrosis staging. These noninvasive fibrosis tests are increasingly used to rule out advanced fibrosis and help guide disease management. While these noninvasive tests perform relatively well for ruling out advanced fibrosis, they also have limitations. Understanding the strengths and limitations of liver biopsy and the noninvasive tests is necessary for deciding when to use the appropriate tests in the evaluation of patients with NAFLD.

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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 15%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 41 30%
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 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,362
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,081
of 304,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#44
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 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 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 304,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.