↓ Skip to main content

Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2013
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Morel, Francis Arickx, Gustaf Befrits, Paolo Siviero, Caroline van der Meijden, Entela Xoxi, Steven Simoens

Abstract

National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches - called managed entry agreements (MEAs) - to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 200 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 24%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 13 6%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 49 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 27 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 21 10%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 54 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,080,428
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#415
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,420
of 320,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 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 86% 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 320,858 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.