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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ursodeoxycholic acid counteracts celecoxib in reduction of duodenal polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-8-118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bjorn WH van Heumen, Hennie MJ Roelofs, M Elisa Vink-Börger, Evelien Dekker, Elisabeth MH Mathus-Vliegen, Jan Dees, Jan J Koornstra, Alexandra MJ Langers, Iris D Nagtegaal, Ellen Kampman, Wilbert HM Peters, Fokko M Nagengast, |
| Abstract |
Due to prophylactic colectomy, mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) has changed, with duodenal cancer currently being the main cause of death. Although celecoxib reduces duodenal polyp density in patients with FAP, its long-term use may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and alternatives need to be explored. Preclinical studies suggest that the combination of celecoxib with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a potentially effective strategy. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect of celecoxib and UDCA co-treatment on duodenal adenomatosis in patients with FAP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 17% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2,441
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,788
of 208,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#43
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 208,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.