↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma and Allergy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 536)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy
Published in
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/jaa.s62288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sian W Ludman, Robert J Boyle

Abstract

Systemic allergic reactions to insect stings affect up to 5% of the population during their lifetime, and up to 32% of beekeepers. Such reactions can be fatal, albeit very rarely, and fear of a further systemic reaction (SR) can lead to significant anxiety and quality of life impairment. A recent Cochrane systematic review confirmed that venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment for people who have had a systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting. VIT reduces risk of a further SR (relative risk 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.28), but VIT also reduces risk of a future large local reaction, and significantly improves disease-specific quality of life. However, health economic analysis showed that VIT is generally not cost effective for preventing future SRs; most people are stung infrequently, most SRs resolve without long-term consequences, and a fatal outcome is extremely rare. VIT only becomes cost effective if one is stung frequently (eg, beekeepers) or if quality of life improvement is considered. Thus, for most people with insect sting allergy, anxiety and quality of life impairment should be the overriding consideration when making treatment decisions, highlighting the importance of a patient-centered approach. Areas which need to be explored in future research include efforts to improve the safety and convenience of VIT such as the use of sublingual immunotherapy; quality of life effects of venom allergy in children and adolescents as well as their parents; and the optimal duration of treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Other 11 13%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Psychology 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 327. 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 23 February 2023.
All research outputs
#103,181
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#2
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#999
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them