↓ Skip to main content

The prophylactic use of C1 inhibitor in hereditary angioedema patients undergoing invasive surgical procedures: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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 prophylactic use of C1 inhibitor in hereditary angioedema patients undergoing invasive surgical procedures: a retrospective study
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1710-1492-10-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geneviève Gavigan, William H Yang, Stephanie Santucci, Rachel Harrison, Jacob Karsh

Abstract

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare autosomal dominant condition characterized by episodic angioedema, which may be triggered by invasive procedures and surgery. C1 inhibitor (C1 INH) was approved in the United States and Canada in 2009 and 2010, respectively, for the treatment of acute attacks. Most recently in April 2013, it was approved in Europe for short-term prophylaxis (STP), prior to medical, dental, or surgical procedures, to prevent HAE attacks in both children and adults. Currently, C1 INH is not approved in Canada or the United States for STP of HAE attacks. Our objective was to demonstrate the effectiveness of C1 INH as a short-term prophylactic treatment for patients with Type I HAE undergoing invasive surgical procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
Turkey 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 67%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#430
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,682
of 241,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 241,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.