↓ Skip to main content

Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for RecurrentClostridium difficile

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1701 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1919 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
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
Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for RecurrentClostridium 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,023 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,919 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1919 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 <1%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 <1%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 <1%
Unknown 1916 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Unknown 1916 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1780. 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 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,003
of 13,385,701 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#53
of 25,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10
of 243,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#2
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,385,701 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 25,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.7. 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 243,202 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 331 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.