| Title |
Once-daily sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy improves quality of life in patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A double-blind, randomised study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, October 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-006-9110-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabina Rak, William H. Yang, Martin R. Pedersen, Stephen R. Durham |
| Abstract |
The effect of sublingual immunotherapy on quality of life (QoL) was examined in patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. Patients (n = 855) were randomised to once-daily grass allergen tablets (2,500; 25,000; or 75,000 SQ-T Phleum pratense extract; GRAZAX or placebo. Treatment was initiated 8 weeks before the start of the grass pollen season and continued throughout. If symptoms were present, patients received loratadine or placebo rescue medication. There were three major findings: in patients using loratadine, grass allergen tablets provided QOL benefits over placebo; Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score was 17% (p = 0.006) and 20% (p = 0.020) greater with 75,000 SQ-T tablet than with placebo at first and second seasonal visit, respectively; in patients not using loratadine, grass allergen tablets improved QoL more than placebo; RQLQ score was 21% greater (p = 0.021) with 75,000 SQ-T tablet at second seasonal visit; grass tablets (without loratadine) had a greater effect on QoL than loratadine alone. RQLQ score was 26% (p = 0.014) greater with 75,000 SQ-T tablets than loratadine at second seasonal visit. These data show that sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets improves QOL in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, reduces symptoms, and that this effect is greater than rescue antihistamine alone. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,728,388
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#438
of 2,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,075
of 66,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,862 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 66,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.