↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation in alcohol use disorders – insights from the nalmefene experience

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Evaluation in alcohol use disorders – insights from the nalmefene experience
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0664-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Naudet, Clément Palpacuer, Rémy Boussageon, Bruno Laviolle

Abstract

Nalmefene was the first treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency for reducing alcohol consumption in adult patients with alcohol dependence. It is often presented as a paradigm shift in therapeutics, but major issues limit the interpretation of the evidence supporting its use. The randomised trials submitted provided no evidence of harm reduction, the differences on consumption outcomes were of questionable clinical relevance, the target population was defined a posteriori and the drug was compared to a placebo although naltrexone was already used off-label. No post-approval randomised study is currently designed to clearly address these issues. In addition, nalmefene trials have been uncritically cited, even in guidelines. This experience reveals weaknesses in drug evaluations in alcohol dependence, which call for changes. We propose to dispense with alcohol consumption as a surrogate outcome, to consider comparative effectiveness issues, and to recommend randomised post-approval studies in case of controversial approval.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Researcher 9 23%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,336,158
of 19,519,615 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,266
of 2,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,000
of 281,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,519,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 281,674 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them