↓ Skip to main content

Specific Antibody Deficiency: Controversies in Diagnosis and Management

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Specific Antibody Deficiency: Controversies in Diagnosis and Management
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00586
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Perez, Francisco A. Bonilla, Jordan S. Orange, Mark Ballow

Abstract

Specific antibody deficiency (SAD) is a primary immunodeficiency disease characterized by normal immunoglobulins (Igs), IgA, IgM, total IgG, and IgG subclass levels, but with recurrent infection and diminished antibody responses to polysaccharide antigens following vaccination. There is a lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of SAD, and its clinical significance is not well understood. Here, we discuss current evidence and challenges regarding the diagnosis and treatment of SAD. SAD is normally diagnosed by determining protective titers in response to the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. However, the definition of an adequate response to immunization remains controversial, including the magnitude of response and number of pneumococcal serotypes needed to determine a normal response. Confounding these issues, anti-polysaccharide antibody responses are age- and probably serotype dependent. Therapeutic strategies and options for patients with SAD are often based on clinical experience due to the lack of focused studies and absence of a robust case definition. The mainstay of therapy for patients with SAD is antibiotic prophylaxis. However, there is no consensus regarding the frequency and severity of infections warranting antibiotic prophylaxis and no standardized regimens and no studies of efficacy. Published expert guidelines and opinions have recommended IgG therapy, which are supported by observations from retrospective studies, although definitive data are lacking. In summary, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of therapeutic strategies for patients with SAD. We believe that it is best to approach each patient as an individual and progress through diagnostic and therapeutic interventions together with existing practice guidelines.

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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 16%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 38%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#20,307
of 31,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,884
of 327,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#297
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 327,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.