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 |
The story of artesunate–mefloquine (ASMQ), innovative partnerships in drug development: case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-12-68 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Wells, Graciela Diap, Jean-René Kiechel |
| Abstract |
The Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) is a not-for profit organization committed to providing affordable medicines and access to treatments in resource-poor settings. Traditionally drug development has happened "in house" within pharmaceutical companies, with research and development costs ultimately recuperated through drug sales. The development of drugs for the treatment of neglected tropical diseases requires a completely different model that goes beyond the scope of market-driven research and development. Artesunate and mefloquine are well-established drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria, with a strong safety record based on many years of field-based studies and use. The administration of such artemisinin-based combination therapy in a fixed-dose combination is expected to improve patient compliance and to reduce the risk of emerging drug resistance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 39 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,149,341
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#999
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,038
of 196,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#19
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 196,587 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.