| Title |
Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-019-00527-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caridad Pontes, Corinne Zara, Josep Torrent-Farnell, Merce Obach, Cristina Nadal, Patricia Vella-Bonanno, Michael Ermisch, Steven Simoens, Renata Curi Hauegen, Jolanta Gulbinovic, Angela Timoney, Antony P. Martin, Tanja Mueller, Anna Nachtnebel, Stephen Campbell, Gisbert Selke, Tomasz Bochenek, Celia C. Rothe, Ileana Mardare, Marion Bennie, Jurij Fürst, Rickard E. Malmstrom, Brian Godman |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 33% |
| France | 2 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,730,160
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#165
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,219
of 385,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 385,767 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.