↓ Skip to main content

Dietary pattern, asthma, and atopic and non-atopic wheezing in children and adolescents: SCAALA study, Salvador, Bahia State, Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Dietary pattern, asthma, and atopic and non-atopic wheezing in children and adolescents: SCAALA study, Salvador, Bahia State, Brazil
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, September 2014
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00165513
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvana D'Innocenzo, Sheila M. A. Matos, Matildes S. Prado, Carlos A. S. T. Santos, Ana M. O. Assis, Alvaro A. Cruz, Dirce M. L. Marchioni, Laura C. Rodrigues, Maurício L. Barreto

Abstract

A cross-sectional study was conducted on dietary patterns and their influence on the occurrence of wheezing and atopic and non-atopic asthma in a sample of 1,168 children and adolescents in Salvador, Bahia State, Brazil. Wheezing and asthma symptoms in the previous 12 months were obtained using the ISAAC questionnaire. The presence of aeroallergen-specific IgE was identified. A food frequency questionnaire was used to define dietary patterns. The study applied logistic regression and multinomial polytomous logistic regression. Fish consumption was associated with a 27% reduction in wheezing (95%CI: 0.56-0.94), 37% in asthma (95%CI: 0.47-0.83), 51% in non-atopic asthma (95%CI: 0.31-0.79), and 38% in non-atopic wheezing (95%CI: 0.46-0.83). The highest tertile of dietary patterns reduced wheezing by 27% (95%CI: 0.57-0.95), atopic wheezing by 46% (95%CI: 0.30-0.98), asthma by 36% (95%CI: 0.49-0.83), and atopic asthma by 50% (95%CI: 0.28-0.89). Fish consumption may thus have a protective effect against wheezing and non-atopic asthma and dietary pattern against atopic asthma and wheezing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,565
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,022
of 248,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#42
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 248,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.