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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The case for conducting first-in-human (phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials in low and middle income countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-811 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lydia Kapiriri, James V Lavery, Peter A Singer, Hassan Mshinda, Lorne Babiuk, Abdallah S Daar |
| Abstract |
Despite the increase in the number of clinical trials in low and middle income countries (LMICs), there has been little serious discussion of whether First in Human (FIH; phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials should be conducted in LMICs, and if so, under what conditions. Based on our own experience, studies and consultations, this paper aims to stimulate debate on our contention that for products meant primarily for conditions most prevalent in LMICs, FIH trials should preferably be done first in those countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 42% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Kenya | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 23% |
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 29% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
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 03 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,537,085
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,831
of 14,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,324
of 139,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#36
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 139,130 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 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.