↓ Skip to main content

Microbiological contamination in counterfeit and unapproved drugs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Microbiological contamination in counterfeit and unapproved drugs
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2050-6511-15-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dieter Pullirsch, Julie Bellemare, Andreas Hackl, Yvon-Louis Trottier, Andreas Mayrhofer, Heidemarie Schindl, Christine Taillon, Christian Gartner, Brigitte Hottowy, Gerhard Beck, Jacques Gagnon

Abstract

Counterfeit and unapproved medicines are inherently dangerous and can cause patient injury due to ineffectiveness, chemical or biological contamination, or wrong dosage. Growth of the counterfeit medical market in developed countries is mainly attributable to life-style drugs, which are used in the treatment of non-life-threatening and non-painful conditions, such as slimming pills, cosmetic-related pharmaceuticals, and drugs for sexual enhancement. One of the main tasks of health authorities is to identify the exact active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in confiscated drugs, because wrong API compounds, wrong concentrations, and/or the presence of chemical contaminants are the main risks associated with counterfeit medicines. Serious danger may also arise from microbiological contamination. We therefore performed a market surveillance study focused on the microbial burden in counterfeit and unapproved medicines.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,940,770
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#122
of 439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,539
of 227,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 227,902 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.