| Title |
Underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis: missed opportunities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jaa.s159400 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin T Prince, Irene Mikhail, David R Stukus |
| Abstract |
Epinephrine is the only effective treatment for anaphylaxis but studies routinely show underutilization. This is especially troubling given the fact that fatal anaphylaxis has been associated with delayed administration of epinephrine. Many potential barriers exist to the proper use of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction. This article will explore both patient-and physician-related factors, as well as misconceptions that all contribute to the underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 301 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 108 | 36% |
| Canada | 35 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 29 | 10% |
| Spain | 6 | 2% |
| Australia | 4 | 1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Romania | 2 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 3% |
| Unknown | 105 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 213 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 54 | 18% |
| Scientists | 27 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 36% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 251. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#150,653
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#3
of 549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,283
of 344,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 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 549 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 344,084 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 6 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