↓ Skip to main content

The diagnosis of food allergy: protocol for a systematic review

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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 diagnosis of food allergy: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/2045-7022-3-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karla Soares‐Weiser, Sukhmeet S Panesar, Tamara Rader, Yemisi Takwoingi, Thomas Werfel, Antonella Muraro, Karin Hoffmann‐Sommergruber, Graham Roberts, Aziz Sheikh

Abstract

The literature on diagnostic tests for food allergy currently lacks clear consensus regarding the accuracy and safety of different investigative approaches. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this 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 aim of this systematic review will be to assess the diagnostic accuracy of tests aimed at supporting the clinical diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Other 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 June 2013.
All research outputs
#15,056,212
of 17,039,068 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#477
of 508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,042
of 163,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,039,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.