| Title |
The practical value of biologics registries in Africa and Middle East: challenges and opportunities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-011-1918-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni, Marzooq Al-Badi, Ala’ Al-Heresh, Samar Al-Emadi, Ahmed El Bawendi, Ayman El Garf, Khaled El Hadidi, Hussein Halabi, Mohammed Hammoudeh, Selma El Hassani, Mustafa Al Maaini, Ibrahim Nahar, Aïcha Ladjouze Rezig, Slaheddine Sellami, Wafaa Sweiri, Ramiz Alswailem, Beverly Traub, Imad Uthman, Elsa van Duuren, Leith Zakraoui, Bassel El Zorkany, Loreto Carmona, Maxime Dougados |
| Abstract |
Biologics, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, are increasingly used for the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. The efficacy of these drugs has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, these studies are conducted in controlled environments, and the results may not necessarily reflect clinical outcomes in daily clinical practice. In Europe and other western countries, numerous biologics registries that enroll and monitor patients receiving biologics have been established. These registries follow patients irrespective of whether they continue with the initial biologic drug. Thus, real-life efficacy data from these registries can be used to assess the long-term safety of biologics through longitudinal studies. In Africa and Middle East (AFME), such registries currently exist only in Morocco and South Africa. In light of the increasing availability of biologics and scarcity of long-term safety data of these agents in the AFME population, there is a need to establish biologics registries in other countries across the region. This review discusses the value of biologics registries versus RCTs as well as safety and efficacy data from observational studies presented as lessons from well-established biologics registries. In addition, the rationale for establishing such registries in the AFME region is also presented. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 51% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,654,408
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#2,202
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,194
of 241,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#22
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 241,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.