↓ Skip to main content

Fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: state of the art and literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: state of the art and literature review
Published in
Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, May 2018
DOI 10.1590/0100-6991e-20181609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Amantini Messias, Bárbara Freitas Franchi, Pedro Henrique Pontes, Daniel Átila DE Andrade Medeiros Barbosa, César Augusto Sanita Viana

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is a common complication following intestinal dysbiosis caused by abusive antibiotic use. It presents medical importance due to the high rates of recurrence and morbidity. Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective alternative for the treatment of recurrent and refractory C. difficile infection and consists of introducing the intestinal microbiota from a healthy donor into a patient with this infection. The exact physiological mechanism by which fecal microbiota transplantation alters the intestinal microbiota is not well established, but it is clear that it restores the diversity and structure of the microbiota by promoting increased resistance to colonization by C. difficile. Several routes of transplant administration are being studied and used according to the advantages presented. All forms of application had a high cure rate, and the colonoscopic route was the most used. No relevant complications and adverse events have been documented, and the cost-effectiveness over conventional treatment has proven advantageous. Despite its efficacy, it is not commonly used as initial therapy, and more studies are needed to establish this therapy as the first option in case of refractory and recurrent Clostridium difficileinfection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 25%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
#59
of 241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,084
of 344,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 241 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 344,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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