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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick testing for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13223-016-0126-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Immaculate F. Nevis, Karen Binkley, Conrad Kabali |
| Abstract |
Allergic rhinitis is the most common form of allergy worldwide. The accuracy of skin testing for allergic rhinitis is still debated. Our primary objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick testing for allergic rhinitis using the nasal provocation as the reference standard. We also evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing as a secondary objective. We searched EBM Reviews from 2005 to March 2015; Embase from 1980 to March 2015; and Ovid MEDLINE(R) from 1946 to until March 2015. We included any study with at least 10 subjects including children. We excluded non-English studies. We performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. We meta-analysed seven studies assessing the accuracy of skin-prick testing using the bivariate random-effects model, including a total of 430 patients. The pooled estimate for sensitivity and specificity for skin-prick testing was 85 and 77 % respectively. We did not pool results for intradermal testing due to few number of studies (n = 4), each with very small sample size. Of these, two evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing in confirming skin-prick testing results, with sensitivity ranging from 27 to 50 % and specificity ranging from 60 to 100 %. The other two evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing as a stand-alone test for diagnosing allergic rhinitis with sensitivity ranging from 60 to 79 % and specificity ranging from 68 to 69 %. Findings from this review suggest that skin-prick testing is accurate in discriminating subjects with or without allergic rhinitis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 46% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 35 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,760,001
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#298
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,053
of 312,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 312,587 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 77% 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 78% of its contemporaries.