↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for appropriate sublingual immunotherapy clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in World Allergy Organization Journal, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Recommendations for appropriate sublingual immunotherapy clinical trials
Published in
World Allergy Organization Journal, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1939-4551-7-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Passalacqua

Abstract

Sublingual immunotherapy is currently considered a viable alternative to the subcutaneous route. The body of evidence of its efficacy is based on the results of 77 clinical trials and 7 meta-analyses, that have been published so far. Nonetheless, the experimental evidence is partially weak due to the large heterogeneity of studies, namely: doses, regimens, patient selection, duration of treatment, outcomes and reporting. In addition, it is virtually impossible to compare the potency of extracts produced by different manufacturers. Also, there is large variability in reporting and in the classification of adverse events, either systemic or local, so that only a rough estimate can be provided. Considering all these aspects, efforts are needed to harmonize the methodology, outcome measures and reporting of SLIT clinical trials, to achieve the ability of comparing the results of various studies. International societies and the World Allergy Organization have recently provided general recommendations on how to design and conduct trials which can provide more interpretable and homogeneous data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 18%
Professor 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from World Allergy Organization Journal
#630
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,744
of 267,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Allergy Organization Journal
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 267,328 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.