↓ Skip to main content

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
57 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.
Article details
Title
DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE
Published in
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, July 2018
DOI 10.1017/s0266462318000259
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines. MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation. In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation. Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 21 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 May 2025.
All research outputs
#7,454,066
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
#498
of 1,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,375
of 325,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 325,424 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 53% 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 is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.