↓ Skip to main content

(R)evolution: toward a new paradigm of policy and patient advocacy for expanded access to experimental treatments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
(R)evolution: toward a new paradigm of policy and patient advocacy for expanded access to experimental treatments
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0586-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Hogan

Abstract

In life-threatening conditions such as cancer and rare diseases, where there is no cure and no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapy, patients sometimes seek access to an unapproved, experimental therapy through expanded access programs as their last, best hope for treatment to save their lives. Since the 1980s, the policies and the practice of expanded access have evolved, but a common challenge remains that there is no obligation, and often little incentive, for manufacturers to offer expanded access programs, especially for individual patients. In recent years, online campaigns seeking access to an experimental therapy have become more common, paralleling growth in and representing an intersection of social media, digital health, and patient advocacy.Mackey and Schoenfeld have examined the evolution of expanded access policy, practice, and trends, as well as case studies of online campaigns to access experimental therapies, to arrive at several recommendations for the future of expanded access. This commentary puts their paper in context, examines their recommendations, and suggests further reforms.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0568-8.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 31%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,820,198
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,702
of 3,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,279
of 297,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#32
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 297,592 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.