↓ Skip to main content

Examination of the Regulatory Frameworks Applicable to Biologic Drugs (Including Stem Cells and Their Progeny) in Europe, the U.S., and Australia: Part II—A Method of Software Documentary Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cells Translational Medicine, December 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Examination of the Regulatory Frameworks Applicable to Biologic Drugs (Including Stem Cells and Their Progeny) in Europe, the U.S., and Australia: Part II—A Method of Software Documentary Analysis
Published in
Stem Cells Translational Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.5966/sctm.2012-0038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina Ilic, Snezana Savic, Evan Siegel, Kerry Atkinson, Ljiljana Tasic

Abstract

A wide range of regulatory standards applicable to production and use of tissues, cells, and other biologics (or biologicals), as advanced therapies, indicates considerable interest in the regulation of these products. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare high-tier documents within the Australian, European, and U.S. biologic drug regulatory environments using qualitative methodology. Eighteen high-tier documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulatory frameworks were subject to automated text analysis. Selected documents were consistent with the legal requirements for manufacturing and use of biologic drugs in humans and fall into six different categories. Concepts, themes, and their co-occurrence were identified and compared. The most frequent concepts in TGA, FDA, and EMA frameworks were "biological," "product," and "medicinal," respectively. This was consistent with the previous manual terminology search. Good Manufacturing Practice documents, across frameworks, identified "quality" and "appropriate" as main concepts, whereas in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) documents it was "clinical," followed by "trial," "subjects," "sponsor," and "data." GCP documents displayed considerably higher concordance between different regulatory frameworks, as demonstrated by a smaller number of concepts, similar size, and similar distance between them. Although high-tier documents often use different terminology, they share concepts and themes. This paper may be a modest contribution to the recognition of similarities and differences between analyzed regulatory documents. It may also fill the literature gap and provide some foundation for future comparative research of biologic drug regulations on a global level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 7%
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 March 2013.
All research outputs
#3,333,513
of 23,664,476 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cells Translational Medicine
#438
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,729
of 282,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cells Translational Medicine
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,664,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 282,384 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.