↓ Skip to main content

Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, July 2016
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13601-016-0113-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangeeta Dhami, Ulugbek Nurmatov, Giovanni Battista Pajno, Montserrat Fernandez-Rivas, Antonella Muraro, Graham Roberts, Cezmi Akdis, Montserrat Alvaro-Lozano, Kirsten Beyer, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Wesley Burks, George du Toit, Motohiro Ebisawa, Philippe Eigenmann, Edward Knol, Mika Makela, Kari Christine Nadeau, Liam O’Mahony, Nikolaos Papadopoulos, Lars Poulsen, Cansin Sackesen, Hugh Sampson, Alexandra Santos, Ronald van Ree, Frans Timmermans, Aziz Sheikh

Abstract

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated food allergy. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in IgE-mediated food allergy. We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised. The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Professor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 27%

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 07 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,402,309
of 21,790,947 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#133
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,319
of 275,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,790,947 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 635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 275,468 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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