↓ Skip to main content

European Reference networks for rare diseases: what is the conceptual framework?

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
European Reference networks for rare diseases: what is the conceptual framework?
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0676-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Véronique Héon-Klin

Abstract

With the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive (2011/24/EU) a mandatory framework was established to foster cooperation on a voluntary basis, within European Reference Networks (ERNs). These networks are composed of centres and healthcare providers. The exchange of knowledge is a central issue in this context. A detailed literature survey was carried out to determine the most important factors affecting information and knowledge exchange, as well as learning, in networks and how this can be supported. New communication technologies are identified as key tools for the European Reference Networks (ERN). This study recommends the elaboration of a systematic knowledge use and knowledge generation plan. The data of this study suggests that the future ERNs will mediate the adoption of the digitised and networked information society in medical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 31 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 33 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,680,053
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#343
of 3,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,429
of 331,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 331,649 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.