| Title |
No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esther J van Zuuren, Christian J Apfelbacher, Zbys Fedorowicz, Aldrin Jupiter, Uwe Matterne, Elke Weisshaar |
| Abstract |
The most important symptom as well as one of the major diagnostic criteria for eczema is itch. Although oral antihistamines continue to be prescribed for people with eczema, it is unclear if they are effective and safe in relieving itch and skin lesions. We sought to evaluate the available evidence on effectiveness of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Bahrain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
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 04 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,740,034
of 23,666,535 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#935
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,499
of 222,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 222,295 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 23 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 52% of its contemporaries.