↓ Skip to main content

The changing landscape of expanded access to investigational drugs for patients with unmet medical needs: ethical implications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
The changing landscape of expanded access to investigational drugs for patients with unmet medical needs: ethical implications
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40545-017-0100-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eline M. Bunnik, Nikkie Aarts, Suzanne van de Vathorst

Abstract

When patients are told that standard medical treatment options have been exhausted, their treating physicians may start looking for promising new drugs that are not yet approved, and still under investigation. Some patients can be included in clinical trials, but others cannot. It is not widely known that these patients might still be eligible for trying investigational drugs, in a therapeutic context. Worldwide, public and private parties are seeking to change this by informing patients and physicians about opportunities for expanded access and/or by facilitating its processes. When expanded access becomes available to larger groups of patients, ethical issues gain prominence, including informed consent, funding issues, disparities in access, and potential adverse effects on clinical drug development. Physicians, patients and policy-makers should not shift the responsibility to address these issues to pharmaceutical companies, but work together to resolve them.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 31%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,924,102
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#285
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,034
of 310,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 310,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.