↓ Skip to main content

Insights in Anaphylaxis and Clonal Mast Cell Disorders

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Insights in Anaphylaxis and Clonal Mast Cell Disorders
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00792
Pubmed ID
Authors

David González-de-Olano, Iván Álvarez-Twose

Abstract

The prevalence of anaphylaxis among patients with clonal mast cell disorders (MCD) is clearly higher comparing to the general population. Due to a lower frequency of symptoms outside of acute episodes, clonal MCD in the absence of skin lesions might sometimes be difficult to identify which may lead to underdiagnosis, and anaphylaxis is commonly the presenting symptom in these patients. Although the release of mast cell (MC) mediators upon MC activation might present with a wide variety of symptoms, particular clinical features typically characterize MC mediator release episodes in patients with clonal MCD without skin involvement. Final diagnosis requires a bone marrow study, and it is recommended that this should be done in reference centers. In this article, we address the main triggers for anaphylaxis, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of patients with MC activation syndromes (MCASs), with special emphasis on clonal MCAS [systemic mastocytosis and mono(clonal) MC activations syndromes].

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Other 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 56%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#8,761,573
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#11,158
of 32,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,193
of 329,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#177
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 329,717 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 427 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 56% of its contemporaries.