↓ Skip to main content

Faecal microbiota transplantation: a regulatory hurdle?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Faecal microbiota transplantation: a regulatory hurdle?
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12876-017-0687-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick Verbeke, Yorick Janssens, Evelien Wynendaele, Bart De Spiegeleer

Abstract

During faecal microbiota transplantation, stool from a healthy donor is transplanted to treat a variety of dysbiosis-associated gut diseases. Competent authorities are faced with the challenge to provide adequate regulation. Currently, regulatory harmonization is completely lacking and authorities apply non-existing to most stringent requirements. A regulatory approach for faecal microbiota transplantation could be inserting faecal microbiota transplantation in the gene-, cell- and tissue regulations, including the hospital exemption system in the European Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products regulation, providing a pragmatic and efficacy-risk balanced approach and granting all patients as a matter of principle access to this therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,247,805
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#117
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,493
of 453,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 453,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 92% of its contemporaries.