↓ Skip to main content

International survey on skin patch test procedures, attitudes and interpretation

Overview of attention for article published in World Allergy Organization Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
International survey on skin patch test procedures, attitudes and interpretation
Published in
World Allergy Organization Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40413-016-0098-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciana K. Tanno, Razvigor Darlenski, Silvia Sánchez-Garcia, Matteo Bonini, Andrea Vereda, Pavel Kolkhir, Dario Antolin-Amerigo, Vesselin Dimov, Claudia Gallego-Corella, Juan Carlos Aldave Becerra, Alexander Diaz, Virginia Bellido Linares, Leonor Villa, Lanny J. Rosenwasser, Mario Sanchez-Borges, Ignacio Ansotegui, Ruby Pawankar, Thomas Bieber, On behalf of the WAO Junior Members Group

Abstract

Skin patch test is the gold standard method in diagnosing contact allergy. Although used for more than 100 years, the patch test procedure is performed with variability around the world. A number of factors can influence the test results, namely the quality of reagents used, the timing of the application, the patch test series (allergens/haptens) that have been used for testing, the appropriate interpretation of the skin reactions or the evaluation of the patient's benefit. We performed an Internet -based survey with 38 questions covering the educational background of respondents, patch test methods and interpretation. The questionnaire was distributed among all representatives of national member societies of the World Allergy Organization (WAO), and the WAO Junior Members Group. One hundred sixty-nine completed surveys were received from 47 countries. The majority of participants had more than 5 years of clinical practice (61 %) and routinely carried out patch tests (70 %). Both allergists and dermatologists were responsible for carrying out the patch tests. We could observe the use of many different guidelines regardless the geographical distribution. The use of home-made preparations was indicated by 47 % of participants and 73 % of the respondents performed 2 or 3 readings. Most of the responders indicated having patients with adverse reactions, including erythroderma (12 %); however, only 30 % of members completed a consent form before conducting the patch test. The heterogeneity of patch test practices may be influenced by the level of awareness of clinical guidelines, different training backgrounds, accessibility to various types of devices, the patch test series (allergens/haptens) used for testing, type of clinical practice (public or private practice, clinical or research-based institution), infrastructure availability, financial/commercial implications and regulations among others. There is a lack of a worldwide homogeneity of patch test procedures, and this raises concerns about the need for standardization and harmonization of this important diagnostic procedure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Chemistry 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,496,331
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from World Allergy Organization Journal
#375
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,656
of 313,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Allergy Organization Journal
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 313,453 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 72% 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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.