↓ Skip to main content

The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/2045-7022-3-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bright I Nwaru, Sukhmeet S Panesar, Lennart Hickstein, Tamara Rader, Thomas Werfel, Antonella Muraro, Karin Hoffmann‐Sommergruber, Graham Roberts, Aziz Sheikh

Abstract

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this protocol of a systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform the formulation of clinical recommendations.The aims of the systematic review will be to understand and describe the epidemiology of food allergy, i.e. frequency, risk factors and outcomes of patients suffering from food allergy, and to describe how these characteristics vary by person, place and time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 June 2013.
All research outputs
#1,691,650
of 17,039,068 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#98
of 508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,630
of 160,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,039,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 160,862 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them