↓ Skip to main content

Three cases of anaphylaxis following injection of a depot corticosteroid with evidence of IgE sensitization to macrogols rather than the active steroid

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Three cases of anaphylaxis following injection of a depot corticosteroid with evidence of IgE sensitization to macrogols rather than the active steroid
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13601-016-0138-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolaj Brandt, Lene H. Garvey, Ulla Bindslev-Jensen, Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Charlotte G. Mortz

Abstract

We present three cases with anaphylaxis after injection of a depot corticosteroid. First, the steroid was suspected as the elicitor, but after evaluation the excipient macrogol was found to be the elicitor. One of the patients had reactions to several unrelated drugs. Increased awareness of anaphylaxis to excipients such as macrogols is needed, especially when allergy tests for the active drug is negative and in patients with a history of repeated anaphylaxis to seemingly unrelated drugs. To establish the correct diagnosis it is important to test with the exact formulation of the culprit drug, as well as all the ingredients including excipients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 67%
Psychology 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,249,168
of 14,064,040 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#162
of 436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,922
of 377,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,064,040 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 377,799 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 62% of its contemporaries.