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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical evidence for orphan medicinal products-a cause for concern?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-8-164 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eline Picavet, David Cassiman, Carla E Hollak, Johan A Maertens, Steven Simoens |
| Abstract |
The difficulties associated with organising clinical studies for orphan medicinal products (OMPs) are plentiful. Recent debate on the long-term effectiveness of some OMPs, led us to question whether the initial standards for clinical evidence for OMPs, set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the time of marketing authorization, are too low. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the characteristics and quality of clinical evidence that is presented for OMPs to obtain marketing authorization in Europe, using the new and validated COMPASS tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 19% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 29 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,267,597
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#269
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,460
of 223,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 223,617 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.