↓ Skip to main content

Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium 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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 21,340)
  • 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)

Readers on

mendeley
1585 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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 Recurrent Clostridium 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, van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdorp M, Fuentes S, Zoetendal EG, de Vos WM, Visser CE, Kuijper EJ, Bartelsman JF, Tijssen JG, Speelman P, Dijkgraaf MG, Keller JJ, van Nood, Els, Vrieze, Anne, Nieuwdorp, Max, Fuentes, Susana, Zoetendal, Erwin G., de Vos, Willem M., Visser, Caroline E., Kuijper, Ed J., Bartelsman, Joep F.W.M., Tijssen, Jan G.P., Speelman, Peter, Dijkgraaf, Marcel G.W., Keller, Josbert J.

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 1,039 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 1,585 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 35 2%
United Kingdom 18 1%
Japan 11 <1%
Canada 10 <1%
Brazil 9 <1%
Denmark 7 <1%
Spain 7 <1%
France 7 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Other 32 2%
Unknown 1443 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 314 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 251 16%
Student > Bachelor 217 14%
Student > Master 183 12%
Other 176 11%
Other 444 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 770 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 416 26%
Unspecified 98 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 96 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 60 4%
Other 145 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1745. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#617
of 9,726,139 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#36
of 21,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8
of 307,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#3
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,726,139 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 21,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.3. 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 307,492 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 318 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.