↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity to food additives, vaso‐active amines and salicylates: a review of the evidence

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 756)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 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
Sensitivity to food additives, vaso‐active amines and salicylates: a review of the evidence
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13601-015-0078-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel J. Skypala, M. Williams, L. Reeves, R. Meyer, C. Venter

Abstract

Although there is considerable literature pertaining to IgE and non IgE-mediated food allergy, there is a paucity of information on non-immune mediated reactions to foods, other than metabolic disorders such as lactose intolerance. Food additives and naturally occurring 'food chemicals' have long been reported as having the potential to provoke symptoms in those who are more sensitive to their effects. Diets low in 'food chemicals' gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s, and their popularity remains, although the evidence of their efficacy is very limited. This review focuses on the available evidence for the role and likely adverse effects of both added and natural 'food chemicals' including benzoate, sulphite, monosodium glutamate, vaso-active or biogenic amines and salicylate. Studies assessing the efficacy of the restriction of these substances in the diet have mainly been undertaken in adults, but the paper will also touch on the use of such diets in children. The difficulty of reviewing the available evidence is that few of the studies have been controlled and, for many, considerable time has elapsed since their publication. Meanwhile dietary patterns and habits have changed hugely in the interim, so the conclusions may not be relevant for our current dietary norms. The conclusion of the review is that there may be some benefit in the removal of an additive or a group of foods high in natural food chemicals from the diet for a limited period for certain individuals, providing the diagnostic pathway is followed and the foods are reintroduced back into the diet to assess for the efficacy of removal. However diets involving the removal of multiple additives and food chemicals have the very great potential to lead to nutritional deficiency especially in the paediatric population. Any dietary intervention, whether for the purposes of diagnosis or management of food allergy or food intolerance, should be adapted to the individual's dietary habits and a suitably trained dietitian should ensure nutritional needs are met. Ultimately a healthy diet should be the aim for all patients presenting in the allergy clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 250 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 62 25%
Student > Master 57 23%
Other 18 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 44 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 48 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#678,333
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#15
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,049
of 291,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 291,301 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 96% 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. This one has scored higher than all of them