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 |
Revealed preferences towards the appraisal of orphan drugs in Poland - multi criteria decision analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13023-018-0803-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katarzyna Kolasa, Krzysztof Miroslaw Zwolinski, Vladimir Zah, Zoltán Kaló, Tadeusz Lewandowski |
| Abstract |
A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique was adopted to reveal the preferences of the Appraisal Body of the Polish HTA agency towards orphan drugs (OMPs). There were 34 positive and 23 negative HTA recommendations out of 54 distinctive drug-indication pairs. The MCDA matrix consisted of 13 criteria, seven of which made the most impact on the HTA process. Appraisal of clinical evidence, cost of therapy, and safety considerations were the main contributors to the HTA guidance, whilst advancement of technology and manufacturing costs made the least impact. MCDA can be regarded as a valuable tool for revealing decision makers' preferences in the healthcare sector. Given that only roughly half of all criteria included in the MCDA matrix were deemed to make an impact on the HTA process, there is certainly some room for improvement with respect to the adaptation of a new approach towards the value assessment of OMPs in Poland. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 43% |
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 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,819
of 2,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,042
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#28
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 326,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.