↓ Skip to main content

Orphan devices: yesterday is history; tomorrow is mystery: towards a European orphan device directive?

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2016
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Orphan devices: yesterday is history; tomorrow is mystery: towards a European orphan device directive?
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0393-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc M Dooms

Abstract

Regulatory and economic frameworks stimulated the research and development of orphan drugs, but very little has been done for devices necessary for the in-vivo diagnosis, prevention and treatment of life-threatening conditions with a low prevalence/incidence. A general public consultation in Europe has shown a positive attitude towards an "orphan device" directive. The United States of America have a Humanitarian Use Device exemption, but Europe is still waiting for such a stimulating framework. Post-marketing surveillance ("materio-vigilance") will be necessary for follow-up, patient-reported outcome measures (quality of life versus survival) needed and off-label use data available for patient-safety reasons. The marketing period for devices is shorter than for medicinal products. Incentives are necessary to stimulate research and development of such "orphan devices" especially when surgical intervention is the only option.

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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Other 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%

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 22 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,753,515
of 15,923,575 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#415
of 1,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,892
of 268,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,923,575 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 268,473 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.