↓ Skip to main content

Prostaglandin D2-supplemented “functional eicosanoid testing and typing” assay with peripheral blood leukocytes as a new tool in the diagnosis of systemic mast cell activation disease: an explorative…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Prostaglandin D2-supplemented “functional eicosanoid testing and typing” assay with peripheral blood leukocytes as a new tool in the diagnosis of systemic mast cell activation disease: an explorative diagnostic study
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12967-014-0213-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dirk Schäfer, Peter Dreßen, Stefan Brettner, Norbert-Folke Rath, Gerhard J Molderings, Katrin Jensen, Christina Ziemann

Abstract

Systemic mast cell activation disease (MCAD) is characterized by an enhanced release of mast cell-derived mediators, including eicosanoids, which induce a broad spectrum of clinical symptoms. Accordingly, the diagnostic algorithm of MCAD presupposes the proof of increased mast cell mediator release, but only a few mediators are currently established as routine laboratory parameters. We thus initiated an explorative study to evaluate in vitro typing of individual eicosanoid pattern of peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs) as a new diagnostic tool in MCAD.

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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 25%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 2 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,198,795
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,780
of 3,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,176
of 231,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#26
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 231,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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.