↓ Skip to main content

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,852)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
3012 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3136 Mendeley
Title
The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic
Published in
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, June 2014
DOI 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Hill, Francisco Guarner, Gregor Reid, Glenn R. Gibson, Daniel J. Merenstein, Bruno Pot, Lorenzo Morelli, Roberto Berni Canani, Harry J. Flint, Seppo Salminen, Philip C. Calder, Mary Ellen Sanders

Abstract

An expert panel was convened in October 2013 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to discuss the field of probiotics. It is now 13 years since the definition of probiotics and 12 years after guidelines were published for regulators, scientists and industry by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WHO (FAO/WHO). The FAO/WHO definition of a probiotic--"live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host"--was reinforced as relevant and sufficiently accommodating for current and anticipated applications. However, inconsistencies between the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation Report and the FAO/WHO Guidelines were clarified to take into account advances in science and applications. A more precise use of the term 'probiotic' will be useful to guide clinicians and consumers in differentiating the diverse products on the market. This document represents the conclusions of the ISAPP consensus meeting on the appropriate use and scope of the term probiotic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 184 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 3,136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 10 <1%
Unknown 3110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 543 17%
Student > Bachelor 510 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 411 13%
Researcher 330 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 192 6%
Other 476 15%
Unknown 674 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 639 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 406 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 374 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 212 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 166 5%
Other 503 16%
Unknown 836 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 479. 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 24 September 2021.
All research outputs
#33,591
of 19,153,137 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#5
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267
of 201,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#1
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,153,137 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 201,262 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 99% of its contemporaries.