↓ Skip to main content

A common language to assess allergic rhinitis control: results from a survey conducted during EAACI 2013 Congress

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational 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 (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
A common language to assess allergic rhinitis control: results from a survey conducted during EAACI 2013 Congress
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13601-015-0080-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter W. Hellings, Antonella Muraro, Wytske Fokkens, Joaquim Mullol, Claus Bachert, G. Walter Canonica, David Price, Nikos Papadopoulos, Glenis Scadding, Gerd Rasp, Pascal Demoly, Ruth Murray, Jean Bousquet

Abstract

The concept of control is gaining importance in the field of allergic rhinitis (AR), with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score being a validated, easy and attractive tool to evaluate AR symptom control. The doctors' perception of a VAS score as a good tool for evaluating AR symptom control is unknown, as is the level of AR control perceived by physicians who treat patients. 307 voluntarily selected physicians attending the annual (2013) European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) meeting completed a digital survey. Delegates were asked to (1) estimate how many AR patients/week they saw during the season, (2) estimate the proportion of patients they considered to have well-, partly- and un-controlled AR, (3) communicate how they gauged this control and (4) assess how useful they would find a VAS as a method of gauging control. 257 questionnaires were filled out completely and analysed. EAACI delegates reported seeing 46.8 [standard deviation (SD) 68.5] AR patients/week during the season. They estimated that 38.7 % (SD 24.0), 34.2 % (SD 20.2) and 20.0 % (SD 16.34) of their AR patients had well-controlled (no AR symptoms), partly-controlled (some AR symptoms), or un-controlled-(moderate/severe AR symptoms) disease despite taking medication [remainder unknown (7.1 %)]. However, AR control was assessed in many ways, including symptom severity (74 %), frequency of day- and night-time symptoms (67 %), activity impairment (57 %), respiratory function monitoring (nasal and/or lung function; 40 %) and incidence of AR exacerbations (50 %). 91 % of delegates felt a simple VAS would be a useful tool to gauge AR symptom control. A substantial portion of patients with AR are perceived as having uncontrolled or partly controlled disease even when treated. A simple VAS score is considered a useful tool to monitor AR control.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 15%
Other 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%

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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,196,818
of 12,959,872 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#196
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,646
of 280,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#25
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,959,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 280,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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 62% of its contemporaries.