↓ Skip to main content

Immunologie der Polyposis nasi als Grundlage für eine Therapie mit Biologicals

Overview of attention for article published in HNO, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Immunologie der Polyposis nasi als Grundlage für eine Therapie mit Biologicals
Published in
HNO, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00106-018-0557-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Klimek, M. Koennecke, J. Hagemann, B. Wollenberg, S. Becker

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a heterogeneous and multifactorial inflammation of the nasal and paranasal mucosa. Until now, no internationally standardized classification could be developed. In most cases, CRS is phenotypically classified according to chronic rhinosinusitis with (CRScNP) and without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). However, recent studies could show that there are numerous endotypes within these phenotypes based on different inflammatory mechanisms. This review describes the important immunological mechanisms of CRScNP and highlights modern treatment options with biologicals directly addressing particular immunological processes. Current knowledge on immunological and molecular processes of CRS, particularly CRScNP, was extracted from Medline, PubMed, national and international study- and guideline-registers, and the Cochrane library by a systematic review of the literature. Based on current literature, various immunological mechanisms for CRS and CRScNP could be identified. Relevant studies for the treatment of eosinophilic conditions such as asthma or CRScNP are presented and, if available, results of these studies are discussed. The growing insight into the underlying immunological mechanisms of CRScNP could pave the way for new personalized treatment options such as biologicals in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Other 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 10 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 8%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 July 2019.
All research outputs
#20,532,290
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from HNO
#327
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,621
of 334,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HNO
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 334,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.