↓ Skip to main content

(A Critical Appraisal of) Classification of Hypereosinophilic Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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 Critical Appraisal of) Classification of Hypereosinophilic Disorders
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Emmanuel Kahn, Matthieu Groh, Guillaume Lefèvre

Abstract

Hypereosinophilia (HE) is a heterogeneous condition that can be reported in various (namely inflammatory, allergic, infectious, or neoplastic) diseases with distinct pathophysiological pathways. In 1975, Chusid et al. published the first diagnostic criteria of hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES). Over the years, as both basic and clinical knowledge improved, several updates have been suggested, with a focus on better distinguishing isolated or asymptomatic eosinophilia from diseases with specific eosinophil-related organ damage. Moreover, underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms of eosinophilia gradually became the cornerstone of successive attempts to classify HE-related diseases. In 2011, the International Cooperative Working Group on Eosinophil Disorders criteria emerged from a multidisciplinary Working Conference on Eosinophil Disorders and Syndromes, and provided substantial contribution to the clarification of general concepts and definitions in the field of HE. Yet, owing to the low prevalence of HE/HES, to the numerous diseases encompassed in the spectrum of HE-related disorders (with sometimes overlapping phenotypes), many questions are left unanswered (e.g., the need to better standardize the use of modern molecular tools, or the clinical relevance of distinguishing different subtypes of idiopathic HES). Here, we review the current state of knowledge in the fields of classification and diagnosis criteria of HE-related diseases, with emphasis on the analysis of both strengths and weaknesses of present concepts and their usefulness in daily practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Other 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 52%
Computer Science 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 35%
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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,001
of 5,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,145
of 439,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#55
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 439,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.