↓ Skip to main content

Exercise-induced anaphylaxis: A clinical view

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, January 2012
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Exercise-induced anaphylaxis: A clinical view
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1824-7288-38-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlotta Povesi Dascola, Carlo Caffarelli

Abstract

Exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIA) is a distinct form of physical allergy. The development of anaphylaxis during exertion often requires the concomitant exposure to triggering factors such as intake of foods (food dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis) or drugs prior to exercise, extreme environmental conditions. EIA is a rare, but serious disorder, which is often undetected or inadequately treated. This article summarizes current evidences on pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. We reviewed recent advances in factors triggering the release of mediators from mast cells which seems to play a pathogenetic role. A correct diagnosis is essential to avoid unnecessary restricted diet, to allow physical activity in subjects with EIA dependent from triggering factors such as food, and to manage attacks. An algorithm for diagnosing EIA based on medical history, IgE tests and exercise challenge test has been provided. In the long-term management of EIA, there is a need for educating patients and care-givers to avoid exposure to precipitating factors and to recognize and treat episodes. Future researches on existing questions are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 26%
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Professor 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,494,404
of 19,476,606 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#104
of 782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,980
of 146,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,476,606 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 782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 146,797 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.