↓ Skip to main content

Assuring Safety of Inherently Unsafe Medications: the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Assuring Safety of Inherently Unsafe Medications: the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13181-013-0374-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lewis S. Nelson, Meredith Loh, Jeanmarie Perrone

Abstract

The decision to approve a drug for clinical use is based on an understanding of its benefits versus the risks. Although efficacy is generally understood at the time of submission to the FDA for approval, the risks are more difficult to assess. Both PubMed (from 2000 to 2012) and the FDA website ( www.fda.gov ) were searched using the search terms "risk evaluation and mitigation strategy" (REMS). Articles for review were selected by relevance to topic, and their references were searched as well for additional relevant resources. Since the search results were not expected to contain research studies, formal quality assessment and inclusion and exclusion criteria were not utilized resulting in a narrative review. Few directly relevant research studies exist, although supporting documents such as government reports were available. For effective drugs with unclear or concerning safety records, the FDA has the option of requiring a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, which allows a systematic approach to track and assure safe medication use. Over 100 different medications are currently covered by REMS, and each REMS is developed individually based on the needs of the specific drug or class. Although likely associated with improvements in medication safety, the potential benefit, limitations, and consequences of REMS are not yet fully understood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 11 25%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 June 2022.
All research outputs
#5,984,409
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#344
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,354
of 305,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,366 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.