↓ Skip to main content

Imbalances in faecal and duodenal Bifidobacterium species composition in active and non-active coeliac disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 3,370)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
178 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 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
Imbalances in faecal and duodenal Bifidobacterium species composition in active and non-active coeliac disease
Published in
BMC Microbiology, December 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2180-8-232
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Carmen Collado, Ester Donat, Carmen Ribes-Koninckx, Miguel Calabuig, Yolanda Sanz

Abstract

Gut bifidobacteria are believed to influence immune-related diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the possible relationships between the gut bifidobacteria composition and coeliac disease (CD) in children. A total of 48 faecal samples (30 and 18 samples from active and no active CD patients, respectively) and 33 duodenal biopsy specimens of CD patients (25 and 8 samples from active and non-active CD patients, respectively) were analysed. Samples (30 faecal samples and 8 biopsies) from a control age-matched group of children were also included for comparative purposes. Gut Bifidobacterium genus and species were analyzed by real-time PCR.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 19%
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 44 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 51 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 21 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,217,159
of 24,476,221 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#46
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,514
of 177,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#3
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,476,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 177,494 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 96% of its contemporaries.