↓ Skip to main content

Investigation of potential early Histologic markers of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Investigation of potential early Histologic markers of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12876-015-0359-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Bass, Craig A. Friesen, Amanda D. Deacy, Nancy A. Neilan, Julia M. Bracken, Valentina Shakhnovich, Vivekanand Singh

Abstract

Early manifestations of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be relatively nonspecific. Initial mucosal biopsies may not be conclusive, delaying the diagnosis until subsequent biopsies demonstrate typical histologic features of IBD. We hypothesized that certain inflammatory cell types may be utilized as early histologic indicators of IBD in children. A retrospective analysis compared histologic findings from initially inconclusive or negative endoscopic studies in 22 patients who were subsequently diagnosed with IBD (after diagnostic endoscopy) to those of 20 comparison patients with functional abdominal pain matched for age, gender, and study type. A pediatric pathologist, blinded to study group, reviewed biopsies for histologic abnormalities. Eosinophil densities were obtained from the stomach, duodenum, and rectosigmoid areas. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) was performed on the stomach and rectosigmoid areas. Gastritis and colonic crypt distortion were present in the IBD group at a greater rate (61 % vs. 22 %, p = 0.020; 34 % vs. 4 %, p = 0.008, respectively). Peak and mean eosinophil densities in the rectosigmoid area were greater in the IBD group (17.0/hpf vs. 5.0/hpf, p = 0.0063; 12.3/hpf vs. 4.2/hpf, p = 0.0106, respectively). TNF-α and MMP-9 staining did not reveal any significant differences. Our data suggests that significantly greater inflammation in the stomach, crypt distortion in the colon, and eosinophilia in the rectosigmoid distinguished the IBD group from the comparison group at the time of the initial endoscopic evaluation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 51%
Psychology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,501
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#1,362
of 1,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,164
of 279,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#34
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.