| Title |
Pharmacogenetic research activity in Central America and the Caribbean: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmacogenomics, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2217/pgs-2016-0053 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carolina Cspedes-Garro, Mara-Eugenia G Naranjo, Fernanda Rodrigues-Soares, Adrin LLerena, Jorge Duconge, Lazara K Montan-Jaime, Hilda Roblejo, Humberto Farias, Mara de los A Campos, Ronald Ramrez, Vctor Serrano, Carmen I Villagrn, Eva M Peas-LLed |
| Abstract |
The present review was aimed at analyzing the pharmacogenetic scientific activity in Central America and the Caribbean. A literature search for pharmacogenetic studies in each country of the region was conducted on three databases using a list of the most relevant pharmacogenetic biomarkers including 'phenotyping probe drugs' for major drug metabolizing enzymes. The review included 132 papers involving 47 biomarkers and 35,079 subjects (11,129 healthy volunteers and 23,950 patients). The country with the most intensive pharmacogenetic research was Costa Rica. The most studied medical therapeutic area was oncology, and the most investigated biomarkers were CYP2D6 and HLA-A/B. Conclusion: Research activity on pharmacogenetics in Central American and the Caribbean populations is limited or absent. Therefore, strategies to promote effective collaborations, and foster interregional initiatives and research efforts among countries from the region could help for the rational clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics and personalized medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Professor | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
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 16 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,415,054
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacogenomics
#81
of 1,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,444
of 315,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacogenomics
#7
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,174 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 315,109 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.