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 |
Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Allergy, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13601-017-0159-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulugbek Nurmatov, Sangeeta Dhami, Stefania Arasi, Graham Roberts, Oliver Pfaar, Antonella Muraro, Ignacio J. Ansotegui, Moises Calderon, Cemal Cingi, Stephen Durham, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Susanne Halken, Eckard Hamelmann, Peter Hellings, Lars Jacobsen, Edward Knol, Desiree Larenas-Linnemann, Sandra Y. Lin, Vivian Maggina, Hanneke Oude-Elberink, Giovanni Pajno, Ruby Panwankar, Elideanna Pastorello, Constantinos Pitsios, Giuseppina Rotiroti, Frans Timmermans, Olympia Tsilochristou, Eva-Maria Varga, Jamie Wilkinson, Andrew Williams, Margitta Worm, Luo Zhang, Aziz Sheikh |
| Abstract |
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC. We undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized. Our searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT. We found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 7 | 19% |
| United States | 5 | 14% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 59% |
| Scientists | 7 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,387,783
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#49
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,949
of 317,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 317,853 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.