↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008838.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert J Boyle, Mariam Elremeli, Juliet Hockenhull, Mary Gemma Cherry, Max K Bulsara, Michael Daniels, J.N.G. Oude Elberink

Abstract

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is commonly used for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had a sting reaction. The efficacy and safety of this treatment has not previously been assessed by a high-quality systematic review. To assess the effects of immunotherapy using extracted insect venom for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had an allergic reaction to a sting. We searched the following databases up to February 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), the Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System, and OpenGrey. There were no language or publication status restrictions to our searches. We searched trials databases, abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings, and the references of identified review articles in order to identify further relevant trials. Randomised controlled trials of venom immunotherapy using standardised venom extract in insect sting allergy. Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. We identified adverse events from included controlled trials and from a separate analysis of observational studies identified as part of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Health Technology Assessment. We identified 6 randomised controlled trials and 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial for inclusion in the review; the total number of participants was 392. The trials had some risk of bias because five of the trials did not blind outcome assessors to treatment allocation. The interventions included ant, bee, and wasp immunotherapy in children or adults with previous systemic or large local reactions to a sting, using sublingual (one trial) or subcutaneous (six trials) VIT. We found that VIT is effective for preventing systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting, which was our primary outcome measure. This applies whether the sting occurs accidentally or is given intentionally as part of a trial procedure.In the trials, 3/113 (2.7%) participants treated with VIT had a subsequent systemic allergic reaction to a sting, compared with 37/93 (39.8%) untreated participants (risk ratio [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 to 0.28). The efficacy of VIT was similar across studies; we were unable to identify a patient group or mode of treatment with different efficacy, although these analyses were limited by small numbers. We were unable to confirm whether VIT prevents fatal reactions to insect stings, because of the rarity of this outcome.Venom immunotherapy was also effective for preventing large local reactions to a sting (5 studies; 112 follow-up stings; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69) and for improving quality of life (mean difference [MD] in favour of VIT 1.21 points on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.67).We found a significant risk of systemic adverse reaction to VIT treatment: 6 trials reported this outcome, in which 14 of 150 (9.3%) participants treated with VIT and 1 of 135 (0.7%) participants treated with placebo or no treatment suffered a systemic reaction to treatment (RR 8.16, 95% CI 1.53 to 43.46; 2 studies contributed to the effect estimate). Our analysis of 11 observational studies found systemic adverse reactions occurred in 131/921 (14.2%) participants treated with bee venom VIT and 8/289 (2.8%) treated with wasp venom VIT. We found venom immunotherapy using extracted insect venom to be an effective therapy for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings, which can improve quality of life. The treatment carries a small but significant risk of systemic adverse reaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 204 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Researcher 17 8%
Other 14 7%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 55 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 66 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,629,685
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,284
of 12,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,968
of 176,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 176,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 58% of its contemporaries.