| Title |
Evidence for the Use of Intravenous Immunoglobulins—A Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12016-009-8155-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shaye Kivity, Uriel Katz, Natalie Daniel, Udi Nussinovitch, Neophytos Papageorgiou, Yehuda Shoenfeld |
| Abstract |
Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) were first introduced in the middle of the twentieth century for the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies. In 1981, Paul Imbach noticed an improvement of immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, in patients receiving IVIg for immunodeficiencies. This opened a new era for the treatment of autoimmune conditions with IVIg. Since then, IVIg has become an important treatment option in a wide spectrum of diseases, including autoimmune and acute inflammatory conditions, most of them off-label (not included in the US Food and Drug Administration recommendation). A panel of immunologists and internists with experience in IVIg therapy reviewed the medical literature for published data concerning treatment with IVIg. The quality of evidence was assessed, and a summary of the available relevant literature in each disease was given. To our knowledge, this is the first all-inclusive comprehensive review, developed to assist the clinician when considering the use of IVIg in autoimmune diseases, immune deficiencies, and other conditions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 211 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 43 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 55 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,984,041
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#149
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,862
of 113,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 113,933 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 85% 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.