↓ Skip to main content

Identifying non-IgE-mediated allergy in primary care: a quantitative analysis of the predictive value of a screening tool

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
Identifying non-IgE-mediated allergy in primary care: a quantitative analysis of the predictive value of a screening tool
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x689869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria S Hammersley, Jessica Harris, Aziz Sheikh, Emma Davidson, Samantha Walker

Abstract

Consultations in primary care for allergies are common. It can be difficult to differentiate between IgE-mediated (atopic) symptoms - which respond to allergen-specific interventions - and those that are non-atopic, without performing objective tests that are largely unavailable in UK general practice. To develop and test a screening tool that can accurately discriminate between atopic and non-atopic individuals. A validation study that took place in 2012 in adult volunteers aged >16 years in Scotland. A questionnaire screening tool was developed using questions from a large cohort study and through consultation with experts. Participants answered the questions and had skin prick tests for four aeroallergens (house dust mite, cat, dog, and mixed grasses). Participants were classified as atopic if any average wheal diameter was ≥3 mm bigger than the negative control. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of individual and combinations of questions were calculated. In all, 143 participants completed the questionnaire and underwent skin prick testing. Of these, 81 (56.6%) were atopic. Negative predictive values for the individual questions ranged from 48.2% (55 not atopic out of 114 negative answers) to 72.0% (18/25). An optimum combination of four questions was identified, in which a negative answer to all four questions was reported by 24 participants, 21 (87.5%) of whom were not atopic. The authors have identified a set of questions that correctly predict negative skin prick tests to common aeroallergens 88% of the time. These may be useful to exclude patients who do not warrant further investigation and who can reliably be advised that allergen avoidance is neither necessary nor helpful.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#232,580
of 8,085,159 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#101
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,061
of 234,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#10
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,085,159 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 234,531 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.