↓ Skip to main content

AAPS-FDA Workshop White Paper: Microdialysis Principles, Application and Regulatory Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmaceutical Research, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
Title
AAPS-FDA Workshop White Paper: Microdialysis Principles, Application and Regulatory Perspectives
Published in
Pharmaceutical Research, March 2007
DOI 10.1007/s11095-006-9206-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chandra S. Chaurasia, Markus Müller, Edward D. Bashaw, Eva Benfeldt, Jan Bolinder, Ross Bullock, Peter M. Bungay, Elizabeth C. M. DeLange, Hartmut Derendorf, William F. Elmquist, Margareta Hammarlund-Udenaes, Christian Joukhadar, Dean L. Kellogg, Craig E. Lunte, Carl Henrik Nordstrom, Hans Rollema, Ronald J. Sawchuk, Belinda W. Y. Cheung, Vinod P. Shah, Lars Stahle, Urban Ungerstedt, Devin F. Welty, Helen Yeo

Abstract

Many decisions in drug development and medical practice are based on measuring blood concentrations of endogenous and exogenous molecules. Yet most biochemical and pharmacological events take place in the tissues. Also, most drugs with few notable exceptions exert their effects not within the bloodstream, but in defined target tissues into which drugs have to distribute from the central compartment. Assessing tissue drug chemistry has, thus, for long been viewed as a more rational way to provide clinically meaningful data rather than gaining information from blood samples. More specifically, it is often the extracellular (interstitial) tissue space that is most closely related to the site of action (biophase) of the drug. Currently microdialysis (microD) is the only tool available that explicitly provides data on the extracellular space. Although microD as a preclinical and clinical tool has been available for two decades, there is still uncertainty about the use of microD in drug research and development, both from a methodological and a regulatory point of view. In an attempt to reduce this uncertainty and to provide an overview of the principles and applications of microD in preclinical and clinical settings, an AAPS-FDA workshop took place in November 2005 in Nashville, TN, USA. Stakeholders from academia, industry and regulatory agencies presented their views on microD as a tool in drug research and development.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 5 3%
United States 3 2%
Unknown 191 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 23%
Researcher 39 20%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 38 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 14%
Chemistry 18 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 35 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,453,350
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Research
#1,016
of 2,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,146
of 76,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Research
#29
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 76,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.