↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010 - 2020

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 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
Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010 - 2020
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-6-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carina Schey, Tsveta Milanova, Adam Hutchings

Abstract

Orphan drugs are a growing issue of importance to European healthcare policy makers. The success of orphan drug legislation in Europe has resulted in an increasing number of licensed medicines for rare diseases, and many more yet unlicensed products have received orphan drug designation. Increasingly the concerns amongst policy makers relate to issues of patient access and affordability, yet few studies have sought to estimate the future budget impact of orphan drugs. The aim of this study was to predict the total cost of orphan medicines in Europe between 2010 and 2020 as a percentage of total European pharmaceutical expenditure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 198 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 22%
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Other 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 40 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 33 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Other 39 19%
Unknown 47 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,604,201
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#331
of 3,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,977
of 143,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 143,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.