| Title |
Therapeutic Management of Primary Immunodeficiency in Older Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs & Aging, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40266-013-0079-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nisha Verma, Anthony Thaventhiran, Benjamin Gathmann, for the ESID Registry Working Party, James Thaventhiran, Bodo Grimbacher |
| Abstract |
Primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) has traditionally been viewed as a group of illnesses seen in the paediatric age group. New advances in diagnosis and treatment have led to an increase in the number of elderly PID patients. However, there is lack of research evidence on which to base clinical management in this group of patients. Management decisions often have to be based therefore on extrapolations from other patient cohorts or from younger patients. Data from the European Society for Immunodeficiencies demonstrates that the vast majority of elderly patients suffer from predominantly antibody deficiency syndromes. We review the management of PID disease in the elderly, with a focus on antibody deficiency disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 April 2013.
All research outputs
#17,687,135
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#1,024
of 1,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,756
of 197,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 197,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.