↓ Skip to main content

Preventing food allergy: protocol for a rapid systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2013
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preventing food allergy: protocol for a rapid systematic review
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/2045-7022-3-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debra de Silva, Sukhmeet S Panesar, Sundeep Thusu, Tamara Rader, Susanne Halken, Antonella Muraro, Aziz Sheikh

Abstract

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is developing guidelines about how to prevent and manage food allergy. As part of the guidelines development process, a systematic review is planned to examine published research about the prevention of food allergy. This systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management, and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the effectiveness of approaches for the primary prevention of food allergy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Nigeria 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Computer Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,450,078
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#126
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,863
of 210,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. 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 210,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.