↓ Skip to main content

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,792)
  • 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)

Mentioned by

news
38 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
181 tweeters
patent
13 patents
facebook
17 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
4 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
2723 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2869 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
The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic
Published in
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, June 2014
DOI 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Hill, Francisco Guarner, Gregor Reid, Glenn R. Gibson, Daniel J. Merenstein, Bruno Pot, Lorenzo Morelli, Roberto Berni Canani, Harry J. Flint, Seppo Salminen, Philip C. Calder, Mary Ellen Sanders

Abstract

An expert panel was convened in October 2013 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to discuss the field of probiotics. It is now 13 years since the definition of probiotics and 12 years after guidelines were published for regulators, scientists and industry by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WHO (FAO/WHO). The FAO/WHO definition of a probiotic--"live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host"--was reinforced as relevant and sufficiently accommodating for current and anticipated applications. However, inconsistencies between the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation Report and the FAO/WHO Guidelines were clarified to take into account advances in science and applications. A more precise use of the term 'probiotic' will be useful to guide clinicians and consumers in differentiating the diverse products on the market. This document represents the conclusions of the ISAPP consensus meeting on the appropriate use and scope of the term probiotic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 181 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 2,869 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 10 <1%
Unknown 2843 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 510 18%
Student > Bachelor 465 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 382 13%
Researcher 308 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 179 6%
Other 448 16%
Unknown 577 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 601 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 375 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 356 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 193 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 160 6%
Other 451 16%
Unknown 733 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 461. 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 06 June 2021.
All research outputs
#32,775
of 17,982,104 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#5
of 1,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282
of 198,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#1
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,982,104 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 1,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. 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 198,950 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 56 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.