↓ Skip to main content

Management of adult patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of Euro-Histio-Net

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, May 2013
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
201 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Management of adult patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of Euro-Histio-Net
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-72
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Girschikofsky, Maurizio Arico, Diego Castillo, Anthony Chu, Claus Doberauer, Joachim Fichter, Julien Haroche, Gregory A Kaltsas, Polyzois Makras, Angelo V Marzano, Mathilde de Menthon, Oliver Micke, Emanuela Passoni, Heinrich M Seegenschmiedt, Abdellatif Tazi, Kenneth L McClain

Abstract

Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) is an orphan disease of clonal dendritic cells which may affect any organ of the body. Most of the knowledge about the diagnosis and therapy is based on pedriatic studies. Adult LCH patients are often evaluated by physicians who focus on only the most obviously affected organ without sufficient evaluation of other systems, resulting in patients being underdiagnosed and/or incompletely staged. Furthermore they may be treated with pediatric-based therapies which are less effective and sometimes more toxic for adults. The published literature on adult LCH cases lacks a comprehensive discussion on the differences between pediatric and adult patients and there are no recommendations for evaluation and comparative therapies. In order to fill this void, a number of experts in this field cooperated to develop the first recommendations for management of adult patients with LCH. Key questions were selected according to the clinical relevance focusing on diagnostic work up, therapy, and follow up. Based on the available literature up to December 2012, recommendations were established, drafts were commented by the entire group, and redrafted by the executive editor. The quality of evidence of the recommendations is predominantly attributed to the level of expert opinion. Final agreement was by consensus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 22 17%
Student > Postgraduate 18 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 12%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 32 25%
Unknown 16 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 70%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 21 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,847,664
of 12,091,568 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#332
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,234
of 134,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#11
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,091,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 134,746 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.