↓ Skip to main content

The future of the development of medicines in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
The future of the development of medicines in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0480-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Fregonese, Irmgard Eichler

Abstract

The development of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been often disappointing. Building on authorized treatments that can benchmark the validity of treatment effect measures, the time has come to standardize endpoints and achieve consensus on their use for different clinical questions and specific IPF phenotypes. In order to facilitate the development of new medicines for IPF it is crucial that the knowledge of the disease and lessons learnt from past trials are taken forward to create international trial networks with involvement of patients, including biobanks and clinical data collection through a multinational registry. Interaction with regulators may be useful to align the initiatives of academia and pharmaceutical companies with the bodies ultimately responsible for licensing new products. Interaction can occur through the use of qualification programs for biomarkers and endpoints, and participation in innovative regulatory pathways and initiatives. Finally, the experience of IPF should be used to benefit even rarer interstitial lung diseases for which no treatment is available, including pediatric interstitial lung diseases. This commentary provides a perspective on the hurdles slowing the development and regulatory approval of medicines for IPF, and encourages close cooperation between investigators and drug regulators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Other 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#3,739,431
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,957
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,569
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#67
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 274,665 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.