↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of diagnostic methods in adult food allergy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Molecular Allergy, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of diagnostic methods in adult food allergy
Published in
Clinical and Molecular Allergy, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12948-015-0033-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donatella Macchia, Giovanni Melioli, Valerio Pravettoni, Eleonora Nucera, Marta Piantanida, Marco Caminati, Corrado Campochiaro, Mona-Rita Yacoub, Domenico Schiavino, Roberto Paganelli, Mario Di Gioacchino, On behalf of the Food Allergy Study Group (ATI) of the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC)

Abstract

Food allergy has an increasing prevalence in the general population and in Italy concerns 8 % of people with allergies. The spectrum of its clinical manifestations ranges from mild symptoms up to potentially fatal anaphylactic shock. A number of patients can be diagnosed easily by the use of first- and second-level procedures (history, skin tests and allergen specific IgE). Patients with complex presentation, such as multiple sensitizations and pollen-food syndromes, frequently require a third-level approach including molecular diagnostics, which enables the design of a component-resolved sensitization profile for each patient. The use of such techniques involves specialists' and experts' skills on the issue to appropriately meet the diagnostic and therapeutic needs of patients. Particularly, educational programs for allergists on the use and interpretation of molecular diagnostics are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 81 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 24 27%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,483,992
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#93
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,340
of 277,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 277,714 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.