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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Three cases of anaphylaxis following injection of a depot corticosteroid with evidence of IgE sensitization to macrogols rather than the active steroid
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Allergy, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13601-016-0138-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolaj Brandt, Lene H. Garvey, Ulla Bindslev-Jensen, Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Charlotte G. Mortz |
| Abstract |
We present three cases with anaphylaxis after injection of a depot corticosteroid. First, the steroid was suspected as the elicitor, but after evaluation the excipient macrogol was found to be the elicitor. One of the patients had reactions to several unrelated drugs. Increased awareness of anaphylaxis to excipients such as macrogols is needed, especially when allergy tests for the active drug is negative and in patients with a history of repeated anaphylaxis to seemingly unrelated drugs. To establish the correct diagnosis it is important to test with the exact formulation of the culprit drug, as well as all the ingredients including excipients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 36% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Romania | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,343,355
of 23,896,578 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#268
of 693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,805
of 427,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,896,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 427,334 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.