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 European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases: three productive years at the service of the rare disease community
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-9-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ségolène Aymé, Charlotte Rodwell |
| Abstract |
The European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases was entrusted with aiding the European Commission in a number of tasks, ranging from the monitoring of initiatives, to recommending improvements and actions to be pursued in the future, in addition to helping strengthen liaison at both European and International levels in the field of rare diseases. The three-year mandate of the EUCERD drew to a close in July 2013 with an impressive record. The EUCERD has laid down the foundations for future work so as to continue to advance in the key areas that have been identified as of interest for the rare disease community at large: centres of expertise, European Reference Networks, patient registries and databases, newborn screening, and indicators for national rare disease plans/strategies. The work of the Committee should now be continued by the newly formed European Commission Expert Group on Rare Diseases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Greece | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Norway | 1 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,516,243
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#159
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,037
of 235,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 235,666 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 93% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.