↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for HLA Genotype and Use of Carbamazepine and Oxcarbazepine: 2017 Update

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for HLA Genotype and Use of Carbamazepine and Oxcarbazepine: 2017 Update
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/cpt.1004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth J. Phillips, Chonlaphat Sukasem, Michelle Whirl‐Carrillo, Daniel J. Müller, Henry M. Dunnenberger, Wasun Chantratita, Barry Goldspiel, Yuan‐Tsong Chen, Bruce C. Carleton, Alfred L. George, Taisei Mushiroda, Teri Klein, Roseann S. Gammal, Munir Pirmohamed

Abstract

The variant allele HLA-B*15:02 is strongly associated with greater risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) in patients treated with carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine. The variant allele HLA-A*31:01 is associated with greater risk of maculopapular exanthema, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, and SJS/TEN in patients treated with carbamazepine. We summarize evidence from the published literature supporting these associations and provide recommendations for carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine use based on HLA genotypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Other 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 41 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 8%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 43 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,918,022
of 17,523,006 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#334
of 3,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,303
of 375,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,523,006 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 375,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.