↓ Skip to main content

Microbiota of the Human Body

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 10: How to Manipulate the Microbiota: Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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.
Chapter title
How to Manipulate the Microbiota: Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Chapter number 10
Book title
Microbiota of the Human Body
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31248-4_10
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-931246-0, 978-3-31-931248-4
Authors

Susana Fuentes, Willem M. de Vos, Fuentes, Susana, de Vos, Willem M, de Vos, Willem M.

Editors

Andreas Schwiertz

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a rather straightforward therapy that manipulates the human gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota, by which a healthy donor microbiota is transferred into an existing but disturbed microbial ecosystem. This is a natural process that occurs already at birth; infants are rapidly colonized by a specific microbial community, the composition of which strongly depends on the mode of delivery and which therefore most likely originates from the mother (Palmer et al. 2007; Tannock et al. 1990). Since this early life microbial community already contains most, if not all, of the predominantly anaerobic microbes that are only found in the GI tract, it is reasonable to assume that early life colonization is the ultimate natural fecal transplantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,979,510
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#1,928
of 5,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,371
of 320,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#23
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 320,375 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.