↓ Skip to main content

Adverse drug reaction monitoring: support for pharmacovigilance at a tertiary care hospital in Northern Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Adverse drug reaction monitoring: support for pharmacovigilance at a tertiary care hospital in Northern Brazil
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/2050-6511-14-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Márcia Germana Alves de Araújo Lobo, Sandra Maria Botelho Pinheiro, José Gerley Díaz Castro, Valéria Gomes Momenté, Maria-Cristina S Pranchevicius

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are recognised as a common cause of hospital admissions, and they constitute a significant economic burden for hospitals. Hospital-based ADR monitoring and reporting programmes aim to identify and quantify the risks associated with the use of drugs provided in a hospital setting. This information may be useful for identifying and minimising preventable ADRs and may enhance the ability of prescribers to manage ADRs more effectively. The main objectives of this study were to evaluate ADRs that occurred during inpatient stays at the Hospital Geral de Palmas (HGP) in Tocantins, Brazil, and to facilitate the development of a pharmacovigilance service.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 4%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 151 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 17 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 42 26%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 31 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 40 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,165,787
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#204
of 438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,396
of 282,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 282,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.