↓ Skip to main content

Basophil activation test: food challenge in a test tube or specialist research tool?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Basophil activation test: food challenge in a test tube or specialist research tool?
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13601-016-0098-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra F. Santos, Gideon Lack

Abstract

Oral food challenge (OFC) is the gold-standard to diagnose food allergy; however, it is a labour and resource-intensive procedure with the risk of causing an acute allergic reaction, which is potentially severe. Therefore, OFC are reserved for cases where the clinical history and the results of skin prick test and/or specific IgE do not confirm or exclude the diagnosis of food allergy. This is a significant proportion of patients seen in Allergy clinics and results in a high demand for OFC. The basophil activation test (BAT) has emerged as a new diagnostic test for food allergy. With high diagnostic accuracy, it can be particularly helpful in the cases where skin prick test and specific IgE are equivocal and may allow reducing the need for OFC. BAT has high specificity, which confers a high degree of certainty in confirming the diagnosis of food allergy and allows deferring the performance of OFC in patients with a positive BAT. The diagnostic utility of BAT is allergen-specific and needs to be validated for different allergens and in specific patient populations. Standardisation of the laboratory methodology and of the data analyses would help to enable a wider clinical application of BAT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Other 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 17 11%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 23 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 38 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,301,734
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#124
of 686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,146
of 301,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 686 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 301,115 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.