↓ Skip to main content

Standardized food challenges are subject to variability in interpretation of clinical symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Standardized food challenges are subject to variability in interpretation of clinical symptoms
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13601-014-0043-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francine C van Erp, André C Knulst, Yolanda Meijer, Carmelo Gabriele, Cornelis K van der Ent

Abstract

Food challenge tests are the gold standard in diagnosing food allergy. Guidelines provide scoring systems to classify symptoms during challenge and typically recommend that challenges are considered positive when objective symptoms occur. However, currently no standard criteria for the definition of a positive challenge outcome exists and interpretation of food challenges mainly depends on clinical judgment. This study aims to assess inter- and intra-observer variability in outcomes of routinely performed peanut challenges in children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,930,204
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#377
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,036
of 369,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 369,510 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.