| Title |
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: people without celiac disease avoiding gluten—is it due to histamine intolerance?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Inflammation Research, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00011-017-1117-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wolfgang J. Schnedl, Sonja Lackner, Dietmar Enko, Michael Schenk, Harald Mangge, Sandra J. Holasek |
| Abstract |
Food intolerance/malabsorption is caused by food ingredients, carbohydrates (mainly lactose and fructose), proteins (gluten), and biogenic amines (histamine) which cause nonspecific gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms. Here we focus on possible etiologic factors of intolerance/malabsorption especially in people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) or the so-called people without celiac disease avoiding gluten (PWCDAG) and histamine intolerance. Recognizing the recently described symptoms of NCGS (PWCDAG) we review correlations and parallels to histamine intolerance (HIT). We show that intestinal and extra-intestinal NCGS (PWCDAG) symptoms are very similar to those which can be found in histamine intolerance. After a detailed diagnostic workup for all possible etiologic factors in every patient, a targeted dietary intervention for single or possibly combined intolerance/malabsorption might be more effective than a short-term diet low in fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) or the untargeted uncritical use of gluten-free diets. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 132 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 18% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
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 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,431,302
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Inflammation Research
#144
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,579
of 448,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Inflammation Research
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 448,285 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.