↓ Skip to main content

The global impact of the DRACMA guidelines cow’s milk allergy clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2018
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
The global impact of the DRACMA guidelines cow’s milk allergy clinical practice
Published in
World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40413-017-0179-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Fiocchi, Holger Schunemann, Ignacio Ansotegui, Amal Assa’ad, Sami Bahna, Roberto Berni Canani, Martin Bozzola, Lamia Dahdah, Christophe Dupont, Motohiro Ebisawa, Elena Galli, Haiqi Li, Rose Kamenwa, Gideon Lack, Alberto Martelli, Ruby Pawankar, Maria Said, Mario Sánchez-Borges, Hugh Sampson, Raanan Shamir, Jonathan Spergel, Luigi Terracciano, Yvan Vandenplas, Carina Venter, Susan Waserman, Gary Wong, Jan Brozek

Abstract

The 2010 Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guidelines are the only Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines for cow's milk allergy (CMA). They indicate oral food challenge (OFC) as the reference test for diagnosis, and suggest the choice of specific alternative formula in different clinical conditions. Their recommendations are flexible, both in diagnosis and in treatment. Using the Scopus citation records, we evaluated the influence of the DRACMA guidelines on milk allergy literature. We also reviewed their impact on successive food allergy and CMA guidelines at national and international level. We describe some economic consequences of their application. DRACMA are the most cited CMA guidelines, and the second cited guidelines on food allergy. Many subsequent guidelines took stock of DRACMA's metanalyses adapting recommendations to the local context. Some of these chose not to consider OFC as an absolute requirement for the diagnosis of CMA. Studies on their implementation show that in this case, the treatment costs may increase and there is a risk of overdiagnosis. Interestingly, we observed a reduction in the cost of alternative formulas following the publication of the DRACMA guidelines. DRACMA reconciled international differences in the diagnosis and management of CMA. They promoted a cultural debate, improved clinician's knowledge of CMA, improved the quality of diagnosis and care, reduced inappropriate practices, fostered the efficient use of resources, empowered patients, and influenced some public policies. The accruing evidence on diagnosis and treatment of CMA necessitates their update in the near future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 53 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 52 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,050,169
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from World Allergy Organization Journal
#147
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,406
of 450,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Allergy Organization Journal
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 450,436 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.