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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Probiotic treatments for induction and maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12328-013-0440-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mikihiro Fujiya, Nobuhiro Ueno, Yutaka Kohgo |
| Abstract |
Probiotics have been used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). However, the effects of probiotics on the induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) still remain controversial. This systematic review verified the findings of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated the therapeutic effects of probiotics on IBD. After the quality assessment, 20 RCTs which investigated the effects of probiotics on the induction or maintenance of remission in IBD were identified. From the results of the validation of these RCTs, beneficial effects of probiotic treatments to improve the response rate and remission rate on the remission induction therapies [risk ratio (RR) 1.81; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.40-2.35 and RR 1.56; 95 % CI 0.95-2.56, respectively] were verified. Furthermore, probiotic treatments exhibited effects equal to mesalazine on the maintenance of remission in UC (RR 1.00; 95 % CI 0.79-1.26). In contrast, no significant effect of probiotic treatments was shown in either the induction or maintenance of remission in CD. Because there were many variations in the conditions among these studies, a further analysis evaluating the effects of probiotic treatments in IBD is needed to clarify the optimal probiotics and treatment regimens for each condition or population in IBD patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 22% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,534,941
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology
#41
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,767
of 306,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 306,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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