↓ Skip to main content

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (4): can we diagnose adverse food reactions in dogs and cats with in vivo or in vitro tests?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, August 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (4): can we diagnose adverse food reactions in dogs and cats with in vivo or in vitro tests?
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1142-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf S. Mueller, Thierry Olivry

Abstract

The gold standard to diagnose adverse food reactions (AFRs) in the dog and cat is currently an elimination diet with subsequent provocation trials. However, those trials are inconvenient and client compliance can be low. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to evaluate in vivo and in vitro tests used to diagnose AFR in small animals. We searched three databases (CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE and Web of Science) for pertinent references on September 16, 2016. Among 71, 544 and 41 articles found in the CAB Abstract, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases, respectively, we selected 22 articles and abstracts from conference proceedings that reported data usable for evaluation of tests for AFR. Serum tests for food-specific IgE and IgG, intradermal testing with food antigens, lymphocyte proliferation tests, fecal food-specific IgE, patch, gastroscopic, and colonoscopic testing were evaluated. Testing for serum food-specific IgE and IgG showed low repeatability and, in dogs, a highly variable accuracy. In cats, the accuracy of testing for food-specific IgE was low. Lymphocyte proliferation tests were more frequently positive and more accurate in animals with AFR, but, as they are more difficult to perform, they remain currently a research tool. All other reported tests were only evaluated by individual studies with small numbers of animals. Negative patch test reactions have a very high negative predictability in dogs and could enable a choice of ingredients for the elimination diet in selected patients. Gastroscopic and colonoscopic testing as well as food-specific fecal IgE or food-specific serum IgG measurements appear less useful. Currently, the best diagnostic procedure to identify AFRs in small animals remains an elimination diet with subsequent provocation trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 22 21%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 30 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 48 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 31 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,997,395
of 24,877,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#117
of 3,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,945
of 320,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#5
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,877,044 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,239 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 320,778 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.