| Title |
Good Signal Detection Practices: Evidence from IMI PROTECT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Safety, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40264-016-0405-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoni F. Z. Wisniewski, Andrew Bate, Cedric Bousquet, Andreas Brueckner, Gianmario Candore, Kristina Juhlin, Miguel A. Macia-Martinez, Katrin Manlik, Naashika Quarcoo, Suzie Seabroke, Jim Slattery, Harry Southworth, Bharat Thakrar, Phil Tregunno, Lionel Van Holle, Michael Kayser, G. Niklas Norén |
| Abstract |
Over a period of 5 years, the Innovative Medicines Initiative PROTECT (Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium) project has addressed key research questions relevant to the science of safety signal detection. The results of studies conducted into quantitative signal detection in spontaneous reporting, clinical trial and electronic health records databases are summarised and 39 recommendations have been formulated, many based on comparative analyses across a range of databases (e.g. regulatory, pharmaceutical company). The recommendations point to pragmatic steps that those working in the pharmacovigilance community can take to improve signal detection practices, whether in a national or international agency or in a pharmaceutical company setting. PROTECT has also pointed to areas of potentially fruitful future research and some areas where further effort is likely to yield less. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 38 | 34% |
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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#8,683,064
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#927
of 1,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,773
of 314,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 314,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.