| Title |
Critical view of anaphylaxis epidemiology: open questions and new perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13223-018-0234-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luciana Kase Tanno, Ana Luiza Bierrenbach, F. Estelle R. Simons, Victoria Cardona, Bernard Yu-Hor Thong, Nicolas Molinari, Moises A. Calderon, Margitta Worm, Yoon-Seok Chang, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos, Thomas Casale, Pascal Demoly, on behalf the Joint Allergy Academies |
| Abstract |
In contrast to the majority of allergic or hypersensitivity conditions, worldwide anaphylaxis epidemiological data remain sparse with low accuracy, which hampers comparable morbidity statistics. Data can differ widely depending on a number of variables. In the current document we reviewed the forms on which anaphylaxis has been defined and classified; and how it can affect epidemiological data. With regards to the methods used to capture morbidity statistics, we observed the impact of the anaphylaxis coding utilizing the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. As an outcome and depending on the anaphylaxis definition, we extracted the cumulative incidence, which may not reflect the real number of new cases. The new ICD-11 anaphylaxis subsection developments and critical view of morbidity statistics data are discussed in order to reach new perspectives on anaphylaxis epidemiology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 41 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 44 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#531
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,683
of 342,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.