| Title |
Medical Causation and Expert Testimony: Allergists at this Intersection of Medicine and Law
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11882-012-0294-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Howard M. Weiner, Ronald E. Gots, Robert P. Hein |
| Abstract |
Clinical practice always necessitates proper diagnosis and correct treatment. For most clinical fields, determining the cause of the illness is irrelevant to the intervention. An oncologist, for example, has no need to explore the "cause" of the patient's lymphoma. Allergists, by contrast, have tools and the need to examine the relevant allergen which is the putative "cause" of the patient's allergic symptomatology. In the context of a legal claim, the "cause" of the symptoms or disorder is central, because it determines financial responsibility. However, in the case of an allergic disorder and identified allergen, a claim requires more. Whose allergen? Where did it come from? These are crucial questions that must be answered. This paper explores the approaches to causal assessment which are important for the clinical allergist as he/she navigates the interface between clinical practice and legal proceedings. Its purpose is to help the allergist understand that interface, and to be prepared to enter an unfamiliar legal arena. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Canada | 2 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 44% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,589,087
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#93
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,920
of 170,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#8
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 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 803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 170,143 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.