↓ Skip to main content

Forces influencing generic drug development in the United States: a narrative review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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.
Title
Forces influencing generic drug development in the United States: a narrative review
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0079-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chia-Ying Lee, Xiaohan Chen, Robert J. Romanelli, Jodi B. Segal

Abstract

The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration, as protectors of public health, encourages generic drug development and use so that patients can access affordable medications. The FDA, however, has limited mechanisms to encourage generic drug manufacturing. Generic drug manufacturers make decisions regarding development of products based on expected profitability, influenced by market forces, features of the reference listed drug, and manufacturing capabilities, as well as regulatory restrictions. Barriers to the development of generic drugs include the challenge of demonstrating bioequivalence of some products, particularly those that are considered to be complex generics. We present here a focused review describing the influences on generic manufacturers who are prioritizing drugs for generic development. We also review proposed strategies that regulators may use to incentivize generic drug development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 5 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,442,997
of 9,752,643 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#51
of 135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,941
of 259,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,752,643 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 259,133 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.