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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: a systematic overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Allergy, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13601-017-0160-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felix Asamoah, Artemisia Kakourou, Sangeeta Dhami, Susanne Lau, Ioana Agache, Antonella Muraro, Graham Roberts, Cezmi Akdis, Matteo Bonini, Ozlem Cavkaytar, Breda Flood, Kenji Izuhara, Marek Jutel, Ömer Kalayci, Oliver Pfaar, Aziz Sheikh |
| Abstract |
There is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma. To undertake a systematic overview of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT for the treatment of allergic asthma. We searched nine electronic databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Systematic reviews were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively and thematically synthesized. We identified nine eligible systematic reviews; these focused on delivery of AIT through the following routes: subcutaneous (SCIT; n = 3); sublingual (SLIT; n = 4); and both SCIT and SLIT (n = 2). This evidence found that AIT delivered by SCIT and SLIT can improve medication and symptom scores and measures of bronchial hyper-reactivity. The impact on measures of lung function or asthma control was however less clear. We found no systematic review level evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT or SLIT. SLIT had a favorable safety profile when compared to SCIT, particularly in relation to the risk of systemic reactions. AIT has the potential to achieve reductions in symptom and medication scores, but there is no clear or consistent evidence that measures of lung function can be improved. Bearing in mind the limitations of synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and the fact that these reviews include mainly dated studies, a systematic review of current primary studies is now needed to update this evidence base, estimate the effectiveness of AIT on asthma outcomes and to investigate the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 31% |
| Iraq | 1 | 8% |
| Panama | 1 | 8% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 8% |
| Romania | 1 | 8% |
| Russia | 1 | 8% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 92% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 34% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,938,537
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#244
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,769
of 317,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 317,618 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.