↓ Skip to main content

Ethical issues in using a cocaine vaccine to treat and prevent cocaine abuse and dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, August 2004
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Ethical issues in using a cocaine vaccine to treat and prevent cocaine abuse and dependence
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, August 2004
DOI 10.1136/jme.2003.004739
Pubmed ID
Authors

W Hall, L Carter

Abstract

A "cocaine vaccine" is a promising immunotherapeutic approach to treating cocaine dependence which induces the immune system to form antibodies that prevent cocaine from crossing the blood brain barrier to act on receptor sites in the brain. Studies in rats show that cocaine antibodies block cocaine from reaching the brain and prevent the reinstatement of cocaine self administration. A successful phase 1 trial of a human cocaine vaccine has been reported. The most promising application of a cocaine vaccine is to prevent relapse to dependence in abstinent users who voluntarily enter treatment. Any use of a vaccine to treat cocaine addicts under legal coercion raises major ethical issues. If this is done at all, it should be carefully trialled first, and only after considerable clinical experience has been obtained in using the vaccine to treat voluntary patients. There will need to be an informed community debate about what role, if any, a cocaine vaccine may have as a way of preventing cocaine addiction in children and adolescents.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Puerto Rico 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Other 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 26%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,342,220
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#411
of 3,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,411
of 60,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 60,550 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.