↓ Skip to main content

Genetic medicines for CF: Hype versus reality

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Pulmonology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Genetic medicines for CF: Hype versus reality
Published in
Pediatric Pulmonology, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/ppul.23543
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric W.F.W. Alton, A. Christopher Boyd, Jane C. Davies, Deborah R. Gill, Uta Griesenbach, Patrick T. Harrison, Noreen Henig, Tracy Higgins, Stephen C. Hyde, J. Alastair Innes, Michael S.D. Korman

Abstract

Since identification of the CFTR gene over 25 years ago, gene therapy for cystic fibrosis (CF) has been actively developed. More recently gene therapy has been joined by other forms of "genetic medicines" including mRNA delivery, as well as genome editing and mRNA repair-based strategies. Proof-of-concept that gene therapy can stabilize the progression of CF lung disease has recently been established in a Phase IIb trial. An early phase study to assess the safety and explore efficacy of CFTR mRNA repair is ongoing, while mRNA delivery and genome editing-based strategies are currently at the pre-clinical phase of development. This review has been written jointly by some of those involved in the various CF "genetic medicine" fields and will summarize the current state-of-the-art, as well as discuss future developments. Where applicable, it highlights common problems faced by each of the strategies, and also tries to highlight where a specific strategy may have an advantage on the pathway to clinical translation. We hope that this review will contribute to the ongoing discussion about the hype versus reality of genetic medicine-based treatment approaches in CF. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2016;51:S5-S17. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 22%
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,235,275
of 12,180,450 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Pulmonology
#1,032
of 2,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,427
of 260,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Pulmonology
#17
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,180,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,097 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 260,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.