↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Site of Care on Infection Rates Among Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases Receiving Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Immunology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Site of Care on Infection Rates Among Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases Receiving Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy
Published in
Journal of Clinical Immunology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10875-017-0371-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard L. Wasserman, Diane Ito, Yan Xiong, Xiaolan Ye, Patrick Bonnet, Josephine Li-McLeod

Abstract

Patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDD) are at increased risk of infection and may require lifelong immunoglobulin G (IgG) replacement. Infection incidence rates were determined for patients with PIDD receiving intravenously administered IgG (IGIV) in a home or hospital outpatient infusion center (HOIC). Data were extracted from a large, US-based, employer-sponsored administrative database. Patients were eligible for analysis if they had ≥1 inpatient or emergency room claim or ≥2 outpatient claims with a PIDD diagnosis between January 2002 and March 2013, 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment prior to index date (i.e., first IGIV infusion date), and 6 months of continuous IGIV at the same site of care after the index date. Incidences of pneumonia (bacterial or viral) and bronchitis (all types) within 7 days of IGIV infusion were retrospectively determined and compared between sites of care. A total of 1076 patients were included in the analysis; 51 and 49% received IGIV at home and at an HOIC, respectively. The event/patient-year of pneumonia was significantly lower in patients receiving IGIV at home compared to an outpatient hospital (0.102 vs. 0.216, p = 0.0071). Similarly, the event/patient-year of bronchitis was significantly lower among patients infusing at home compared to an HOIC (0.150 vs. 0.288, p < 0.0001). PIDD patients experienced incidence rates for pneumonia and bronchitis that were lower for patients receiving home-based IGIV treatment versus HOIC-based IGIV treatment. The lower infection rates in the home setting suggest that infection risk may be an important factor in site of care selection.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,141,729
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#242
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,153
of 420,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 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 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 420,824 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 79% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.