↓ Skip to main content

Allergic rhinitis: the eligible candidate to mite immunotherapy in the real world

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Allergic rhinitis: the eligible candidate to mite immunotherapy in the real world
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13223-017-0185-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giorgio Ciprandi, Valentina Natoli, Paola Puccinelli, Cristoforo Incorvaia, Italian Cometa Study Group

Abstract

As standard drug treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) is not completely satisfactory, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only current treatment with the potential to modify the natural history. House dust mite (HDM) allergy is very common. The aim of the current experience was to describe the clinical profile of HDM-allergic patients with AR who received AIT in a real world model, such as allergy clinics. Globally, 239 patients (126 adults and 113 children; 107 females and 132 males; mean age 21 years, age range 6-56 years) were evaluated. AIT was prescribed in 59 patients (24.7%), 44 adults (35%) and 15 children (13.3%). The current findings deriving from this real world multicentre study are consistent with previous investigations on HDM-AIT and define some clinical characteristics of the eligible candidate to this treatment. In fact, severity of ocular-nasal symptoms and over-use of symptomatic medications may typify the ideal candidate to HDM-AIT and SLIT was the preferred choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#668
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,043
of 323,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 323,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.