| Title |
Eosinophilic Esophagitis Through the Flexible Endoscope and the Lens of a Photographer in the Amazon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12016-018-8676-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amal Assa’ad |
| Abstract |
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a disorder that has been identified recently, thus knowledge about it, its pathogenesis, and potential etiologies has spread in an era where the medical community and the public are receiving the information and discussing it as it appears in the medical literature. Because physiology, pathology, and pathophysiology are difficult to explain in layman terms, the author has used photographs taken in remote areas of the Amazon to create visual similes within a narrative that brings the scientific and medical concepts of the knowledge on EoE to a level that allows both medical and non-medical persons to grasp and discuss their significance. This set of photographs when presented to audiences has generated interest in the disorder as well as in the Amazon and its natural flora and fauna. The author hopes that this pictorial introduction sets the stage for the multiple novel topics reviewed and presented in this issue. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,332,655
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#125
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,893
of 448,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#4
of 17 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 86th 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 81% 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 448,997 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.