↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the usability of EUCERD core indicators for rare diseases.

Overview of attention for article published in Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 105)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Exploring the usability of EUCERD core indicators for rare diseases.
Published in
Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, October 2015
DOI 10.4415/ann_15_04_15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ferrelli, Rita Maria, De Santis, Marta, Gentile, Amalia Egle, Taruscio, Domenica

Abstract

In the context of the Community Programme in the field of Health, the European Commission financed a series of initiatives to support the development and use of indicators for planning health services for Rare Diseases (RDs). The European Project for Rare Disease National Plans Development (EUROPLAN) elaborated a set of 59 process and outcome indicators, for monitoring the implementation and for evaluating the impact of the National Plans on RDs. Due to the high number and difficulty in handling the indicators, the subsequent Joint Action "Working for RDs" planned to derive a selection of 21 core indicators that were adopted by the European Union Committee of Experts on RDs in June 2013. The descriptive study carried out in the framework of the Joint Action to select the key indicators to orient policies for RDs shows that core indicators represent an excellent opportunity to share knowledge and comparability among Member States.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Master 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Other 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 38%
Psychology 2 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 13%
Other 4 50%

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 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,087,007
of 7,059,888 outputs
Outputs from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#29
of 105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,228
of 318,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,059,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 318,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.