| Title |
Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin P. Ho, Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Herbert P. Lerner, Carolyn Y. Neuland, Joyce M. Whang, Michelle McMurry-Heath, A. Brett Hauber, Telba Irony |
| Abstract |
Patients have a unique role in deciding what treatments should be available for them and regulatory agencies should take their preferences into account when making treatment approval decisions. This is the first study designed to obtain quantitative patient-preference evidence to inform regulatory approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 21% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 36% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#2,139,820
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#208
of 6,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,877
of 356,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#2
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,229 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 356,415 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.