↓ Skip to main content

International physician survey on management of FOP: a modified Delphi study

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
International physician survey on management of FOP: a modified Delphi study
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0659-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maja Di Rocco, Genevieve Baujat, Marta Bertamino, Matthew Brown, Carmen L. De Cunto, Patricia L. R. Delai, Elisabeth M. W. Eekhoff, Nobuhiko Haga, Edward Hsiao, Richard Keen, Rolf Morhart, Robert J. Pignolo, Frederick S. Kaplan

Abstract

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), a disabling disorder of progressive heterotopic ossification (HEO), is caused by heterozygous gain-of- function mutations in Activin receptor A, type I (ACVR1, also known as ALK2), a bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) type I receptor. Presently, symptomatic management is possible, but no definitive treatments are available. Although extensive guidelines for symptomatic management are widely used, regional preferences exist. In order to understand if there was worldwide consensus among clinicians treating FOP patients, an expert panel of physicians directly involved in FOP patient care was convened. Using a modified Delphi method, broad international consensus was reached on four main topics: diagnosis, prevention of flare-ups, patient and family-centered care and general clinical management issues. This study of physician preferences provides a basis for standardization of clinical management for FOP.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Engineering 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,055,816
of 24,363,506 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#765
of 2,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,712
of 321,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#14
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,363,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 321,182 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.