| Title |
World Health Organization Methodology to Prioritize Emerging Infectious Diseases in Need of Research and Development - Volume 24, Number 9—September 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2409.171427 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Massinissa Si Mehand, Piers Millett, Farah Al-Shorbaji, Cathy Roth, Marie Paule Kieny, Bernadette Murgue |
| Abstract |
The World Health Organization R&D Blueprint aims to accelerate the availability of medical technologies during epidemics by focusing on a list of prioritized emerging diseases for which medical countermeasures are insufficient or nonexistent. The prioritization process has 3 components: a Delphi process to narrow down a list of potential priority diseases, a multicriteria decision analysis to rank the short list of diseases, and a final Delphi round to arrive at a final list of 10 diseases. A group of international experts applied this process in January 2017, resulting in a list of 10 priority diseases. The robustness of the list was tested by performing a sensitivity analysis. The new process corrected major shortcomings in the pre-R&D Blueprint approach to disease prioritization and increased confidence in the results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 23% |
| Switzerland | 5 | 10% |
| Australia | 3 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Germany | 3 | 6% |
| India | 2 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Somalia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 60% |
| Scientists | 9 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 24% |
| Unknown | 47 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 13 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,042,769
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,193
of 9,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,775
of 346,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#13
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 346,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.