↓ Skip to main content

The development and implementation of a training package for dietitians on cow's milk protein allergy in infants and children based on UK RCPCH competencies for food allergies – a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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 development and implementation of a training package for dietitians on cow's milk protein allergy in infants and children based on UK RCPCH competencies for food allergies – a pilot study
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13601-015-0046-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liane Reeves, Rosan Meyer, Judith Holloway, Carina Venter

Abstract

Many food allergy guidelines have been published worldwide over recent years. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines and The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health food allergy care pathways require dietitians to assist with the diagnosis and management of food allergies, which highlighted the need for further education of dietitians to meet these competencies. The aim of this study was to design a competence based one day education course for dietitians on the diagnosis and management of cow's milk protein allergy in infants and children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Andorra 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 17 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,996,479
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#174
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,660
of 360,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 360,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.