↓ Skip to main content

Translating clinical trials from human to veterinary oncology and back

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Translating clinical trials from human to veterinary oncology and back
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0631-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Fürdös, Judit Fazekas, Josef Singer, Erika Jensen-Jarolim

Abstract

In human medicine clinical trials are legally required for drug development and approval. In contrast, clinical trials in small animal cancer patients are less common and legally perceived as animal experiments. Comparative oncology has been recognized as a method to speed up the development of medications by introducing animal patients with naturally developing tumours. In such cases, using animal patients would generate more robust data, as their spontaneous disease resembles the "real life" situation and thus could be more likely to predict the situation in human disease. This would not only provide veterinary oncology access to the latest developments in medicine before they are available for clinical use in animals, but could also lead to generation of clinical data in animal patients that could be translated to humans. Nevertheless, there are several limitations to practical conduct of clinical trials in veterinary medicine. In this review, the possible application of similar standards of Good Clinical Practice as in human clinical drug development will be discussed in detail, with special consideration of legal and ethical aspects in Europe and the US.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 6%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 27%
Researcher 6 18%
Other 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,078,003
of 6,561,959 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#210
of 1,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,975
of 197,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#12
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,561,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,611 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 197,334 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.