↓ Skip to main content

Fatal anaphylaxis registries data support changes in the who anaphylaxis mortality coding rules

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Fatal anaphylaxis registries data support changes in the who anaphylaxis mortality coding rules
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0554-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciana Kase Tanno, F. Estelle R. Simons, Isabella Annesi-Maesano, Moises A. Calderon, Ségolène Aymé, Pascal Demoly, on behalf of the Joint Allergy Academies

Abstract

Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction. The difficulty of coding anaphylaxis fatalities under the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system is recognized as an important reason for under-notification of anaphylaxis deaths. On current death certificates, a limited number of ICD codes are valid as underlying causes of death, and death certificates do not include the word anaphylaxis per se. In this review, we provide evidences supporting the need for changes in WHO mortality coding rules and call for addition of anaphylaxis as an underlying cause of death on international death certificates. This publication will be included in support of a formal request to the WHO as a formal request for this move taking the 11(th) ICD revision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#8,087,155
of 24,273,038 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,185
of 2,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,640
of 429,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#23
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,273,038 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 429,341 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.