↓ Skip to main content

Dietary Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Elimination and Reintroduction

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Dietary Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Elimination and Reintroduction
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12016-017-8660-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara L. Kliewer, Alison M. Cassin, Carina Venter

Abstract

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a food antigen-mediated disorder of the esophagus characterized by eosinophil predominant inflammation and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Dietary antigen elimination induces clinical and histological remission in patients with EoE. The most restrictive of elimination diets (the elemental diet) removes all possible food antigens while empiric elimination diets remove all (or a subset) of food antigens most commonly reported to cause esophageal eosinophilia and food allergies (milk, egg, wheat, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, or legumes). Elimination diets are effective treatments for EoE but pose psychosocial and financial challenges to patients and consequently may impair quality of life. Foods that are commonly eliminated, especially milk, are also nutrient-dense and therefore their elimination may result in inadequate nutrient intake or deficiencies without careful diet planning to include nutritionally comparable and safe food substitutes. After remission is achieved with elimination diets, foods can be reintroduced sequentially to identify specific food triggers, but this reintroduction is not standardized. Food elimination and food reintroductions should consider the patient's lifestyle, nutrition needs, and skills and ideally be managed by a team with knowledge of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and nutrition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Other 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,068,791
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#112
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,440
of 446,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#2
of 18 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 87th 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 83% 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 446,042 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.