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 |
Shortcomings in the Current Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Trials and Potential Solutions for Improvement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2017.00521 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nakul Katyal, Raghav Govindarajan |
| Abstract |
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a clinically progressive neurodegenerative syndrome predominantly affecting motor neurons and their associated tracts. Riluzole and edaravone are the only FDA certified drugs for treating ALS. Over the past two decades, almost all clinical trials aiming to develop a successful therapeutic strategy for this disease have failed. Genetic complexity, inadequate animal models, poor clinical trial design, lack of sensitive biomarkers, and diagnostic delays are some of the potential reasons limiting any significant development in ALS clinical trials. In this review, we have outlined the possible reasons for failure of ALS clinical trials, addressed the factors limiting timely diagnosis, and suggested possible solutions for future considerations for each of the shortcomings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 17 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
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 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,199,761
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,238
of 14,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,164
of 327,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 327,647 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.