↓ Skip to main content

Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement

Overview of attention for article published in World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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
Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement
Published in
World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40413-016-0122-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marek L. Kowalski, Ignacio Ansotegui, Werner Aberer, Mona Al-Ahmad, Mubeccel Akdis, Barbara K. Ballmer-Weber, Kirsten Beyer, Miguel Blanca, Simon Brown, Chaweewan Bunnag, Arnaldo Capriles Hulett, Mariana Castells, Hiok Hee Chng, Frederic De Blay, Motohiro Ebisawa, Stanley Fineman, David B.K. Golden, Tari Haahtela, Michael Kaliner, Connie Katelaris, Bee Wah Lee, Joanna Makowska, Ulrich Muller, Joaquim Mullol, John Oppenheimer, Hae-Sim Park, James Parkerson, Giovanni Passalacqua, Ruby Pawankar, Harald Renz, Franziska Rueff, Mario Sanchez-Borges, Joaquin Sastre, Glenis Scadding, Scott Sicherer, Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn, James Tracy, Vera van Kempen, Barbara Bohle, G Walter Canonica, Luis Caraballo, Maximiliano Gomez, Komei Ito, Erika Jensen-Jarolim, Mark Larche, Giovanni Melioli, Lars K. Poulsen, Rudolf Valenta, Torsten Zuberbier

Abstract

One of the major concerns in the practice of allergy is related to the safety of procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease. Management (diagnosis and treatment) of hypersensitivity disorders involves often intentional exposure to potentially allergenic substances (during skin testing), deliberate induction in the office of allergic symptoms to offending compounds (provocation tests) or intentional application of potentially dangerous substances (allergy vaccine) to sensitized patients. These situations may be associated with a significant risk of unwanted, excessive or even dangerous reactions, which in many instances cannot be completely avoided. However, adverse reactions can be minimized or even avoided if a physician is fully aware of potential risk and is prepared to appropriately handle the situation. Information on the risk of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergic diseases has been accumulated in the medical literature for decades; however, except for allergen specific immunotherapy, it has never been presented in a systematic fashion. Up to now no single document addressed the risk of the most commonly used medical procedures in the allergy office nor attempted to present general requirements necessary to assure the safety of these procedures. Following review of available literature a group of allergy experts within the World Allergy Organization (WAO), representing various continents and areas of allergy expertise, presents this report on risk associated with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology and proposes a consensus on safety requirements for performing procedures in allergy offices. Optimal safety measures including appropriate location, type and required time of supervision, availability of safety equipment, access to specialized emergency services, etc. for various procedures have been recommended. This document should be useful for allergists with already established practices and experience as well as to other specialists taking care of patients with allergies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 49 20%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Master 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Other 17 7%
Other 47 19%
Unknown 59 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 22%
Unspecified 50 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 5%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 67 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,673,754
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from World Allergy Organization Journal
#300
of 775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,964
of 393,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Allergy Organization Journal
#31
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 393,753 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 76% of its contemporaries.
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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.