↓ Skip to main content

Approach to the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: similarities and differences between Europe and North America

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2017
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Approach to the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: similarities and differences between Europe and North America
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13601-017-0144-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. J. Torres, A. Romano, G. Celik, P. Demoly, D. A. Khan, E. Macy, M. Park, K. Blumenthal, W. Aberer, M. Castells, A. Barbaud, C. Mayorga, P. Bonadonna

Abstract

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) affect an unknown proportion of the general population, and are an important public health problem due to their potential to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis and rare severe cutaneous allergic reactions. DHR evaluations are frequently needed in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have a complex diagnosis that requires a detailed clinical history and other tests that may include in vitro tests and in vivo procedures such as skin tests and drug provocation tests. Although over the years both European and U.S. experts have published statements on general procedures for evaluating DHRs, a substantial discordance in their daily management exists. In this review, we highlight both the differences and the similarities between the European and U.S. While a general consensus exists on the importance of skin tests for evaluating DHRs, concordance between Americans and Europeans exists solely regarding their use in immediate reactions and the fact that a confirmation of a presumptive diagnosis by drug provocation tests is often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis. Finally, great heterogeneity exists in the application of in vitro tests, which require further study to be well validated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Other 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,477,937
of 15,295,165 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#89
of 466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,990
of 261,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,295,165 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 466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 261,067 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them