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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 4 | 25% |
| Spain | 3 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 81% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#2,313,513
of 24,212,485 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#291
of 2,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,086
of 321,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,212,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 321,239 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.