↓ Skip to main content

The state of asthma epidemiology: an overview of systematic reviews and their quality

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 544)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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 state of asthma epidemiology: an overview of systematic reviews and their quality
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13601-017-0146-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Genuneit, Annina M. Seibold, Christian J. Apfelbacher, George N. Konstantinou, Jennifer J. Koplin, Stefania La Grutta, Kirsty Logan, Carsten Flohr, Michael R. Perkin

Abstract

Recently, we have published an overview of systematic reviews in allergy epidemiology and identified asthma as the most commonly reviewed allergic disease. Building on this work, we aimed to investigate the quality of systematic reviews in asthma using the AMSTAR checklist and to provide a reference for future, more in-depth assessment of the extent of previous knowledge. We included all 307 systematic reviews indexed with asthma, including occupational asthma, and/or wheeze from our previous search in PubMed and EMBASE up to December 2014 for systematic reviews on epidemiological research on allergic diseases. Topics of the included systematic reviews were indexed and we applied the AMSTAR checklist for methodological quality to all. Statistical analyses include description of lower and upper bounds of AMSTAR scores and variation across publication time and topics. Of 43 topics catalogued, family history, birth weight, and feeding of formula were only covered once in systematic reviews published from 2011 onwards. Overall, at least one meta-analysis was conducted for all topics except for "social determinants", "perinatal", "birth weight", and "climate". AMSTAR quality scores were significantly higher in more recently published systematic reviews, in those with meta-analysis, and in Cochrane reviews. There was evidence of variation of quality across topics even, after accounting for these characteristics. Genetic factors in asthma development were often covered by systematic reviews with some evidence of unsubstantiated updates or repetition. We present a comprehensive overview with an indexed database of published systematic reviews in asthma epidemiology including quality scores. We highlight some topics including active smoking and pets, which should be considered for future systematic reviews. We propose that our search strategy and database could be a basis for topic-specific overviews of systematic reviews in asthma epidemiology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 12 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 28 January 2018.
All research outputs
#874,639
of 18,764,749 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#22
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,113
of 277,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,764,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 277,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them