↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic approach in cases with suspected work-related asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Diagnostic approach in cases with suspected work-related asthma
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6673-8-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tor B Aasen, P Sherwood Burge, Paul K Henneberger, Vivi Schlünssen, Xaver Baur, on behalf of the ERS Task Force on the Management of Work-related Asthma, EOM Society

Abstract

Work-related asthma (WRA) is a major cause of respiratory disease in modern societies. The diagnosis and consequently an opportunity for prevention are often missed in practice. Based on recent studies and systematic reviews of the literature methods for detection of WRA and identification of specific causes of allergic WRA are discussed. All workers should be asked whether symptoms improve on days away from work or on holidays. Positive answers should lead to further investigation. Spirometry and non-specific bronchial responsiveness should be measured, but carefully performed and validly analysed serial peak expiratory flow or forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measurements are more specific and confirm occupational asthma in about 82% of those still exposed to the causative agent. Skin prick testing or specific immunoglobulin E assays are useful to document allergy to high molecular weight allergens. Specific inhalational challenge tests come closest to a gold standard test, but lack standardisation, availability and sensitivity. Supervised workplace challenges can be used when specific challenges are unavailable or the results non-diagnostic, but methodology lacks standardisation. Finally, if the diagnosis remains unclear a follow-up with serial measurements of FEV1 and non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness should detect those likely to develop permanent impairment from their occupational exposures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 18%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 11 29%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,373,631
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#89
of 419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,165
of 210,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 210,336 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.