↓ Skip to main content

Duodenal mucosal risk markers in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: effects of celecoxib/ursodeoxycholic acid co-treatment and comparison with patient controls

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Duodenal mucosal risk markers in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: effects of celecoxib/ursodeoxycholic acid co-treatment and comparison with patient controls
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bjorn WH van Heumen, Hennie MJ Roelofs, René HM te Morsche, Fokko M Nagengast, Wilbert HM Peters

Abstract

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a disease characterized by the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomatous polyps in the colorectum early in life. Virtually all patients with FAP will develop colorectal cancer before the age of 40 to 50 years, unless prophylactic colectomy is performed, which significantly improves their prognosis. The mortality pattern has changed and duodenal cancer now is one of the main cancer-related causes of death in these patients. Practically all patients with FAP develop premalignant duodenal adenomas, which may develop to duodenal cancer in approximately 3-7% of patients. Duodenal cancer in patients with FAP has a poor prognosis. The clinical challenge is to identify patients at high-risk for duodenal carcinoma. Chemoprevention would be desirable to avoid duodenectomy. The main goal of this study is to identify risk markers in normal duodenal mucosa of patients with FAP, that could help identify patients at increased risk for malignant transformation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%

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 12 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,421,946
of 12,011,028 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#504
of 1,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,473
of 196,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#21
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,011,028 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 196,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.