↓ 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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 22 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,005,697
of 17,104,078 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#238
of 1,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,762
of 278,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,104,078 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 278,218 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.