↓ Skip to main content

Clinical pathways for inborn errors of metabolism: warranted and feasible

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Clinical pathways for inborn errors of metabolism: warranted and feasible
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Demirdas S, van Kessel IN, Korndewal MJ, Hollak CE, Meutgeert H, Klaren A, van Rijn M, van Spronsen FJ, Bosch AM, Serwet Demirdas, Imke N van Kessel, Marjolein J Korndewal, Carla EM Hollak, Hanka Meutgeert, Anja Klaren, Margreet van Rijn, Francjan J van Spronsen, Annet M Bosch

Abstract

Inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) are known for their low prevalence and multidisciplinary care mostly founded on expert opinion. Clinical pathways are multidisciplinary tools to organise care which provide a clear route to the best care and improve communication. In 2010 the Dutch Society for Children and Adults with an Inborn Error of Metabolism (VKS) initiated development of clinical pathways for inborn errors of metabolism. In this letter to the editor we describe why it is warranted to develop clinical pathways for IEMs and shortly discuss the process of development for these pathways in the Netherlands.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 9%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,598,350
of 4,897,807 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#532
of 829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,250
of 92,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#27
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,897,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 829 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 92,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.