↓ Skip to main content

Rare disease registries: potential applications towards impact on development of new drug treatments

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Rare disease registries: potential applications towards impact on development of new drug treatments
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0836-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Charlotte M. W. Gaasterland, Kit C. B. Roes, Caridad Pontes, Roser Vives, Arantxa Sancho, Stavros Nikolakopoulos, Eric Vermeulen, Johanna H. van der Lee

Abstract

Low prevalence, lack of knowledge about the disease course, and phenotype heterogeneity hamper the development of drugs for rare diseases. Rare disease registries (RDRs) can be helpful by playing a role in understanding the course of the disease, and providing information necessary for clinical trial design, if designed and maintained properly. We describe the potential applications of a RDR and what type of information should be incorporated to support the design of clinical trials in the process of drug development, based on a broad inventory of registry experience. We evaluated two existing RDRs in more detail to check the completeness of these RDRs for trial design. Before and during the application for regulatory approval a RDR can improve the efficiency and quality in clinical trial design by informing the sample size calculation and expected disease course. In exceptional circumstances information from RDRs has been used as historical controls for a one-armed clinical trial, and high quality RDRs may be used for registry-based randomized controlled trials. In the post marketing phase of (conditional) drug approval a disease-specific RDR is likely to provide more relevant information than a product-specific registry. A RDR can be very helpful to improve the efficiency and quality of clinical trial design in several ways. To enable the applicability and optimal use of a RDR longitudinal data collection is indispensable, and specific data collection, prepared for repeated measurement, is needed. The developed checklist can help to define the appropriate variables to include. Attention should be paid to the inclusion of patient-relevant outcome measures in the RDR from the start. More research and experience is needed on the possibilities and limitations of combining RDR information with clinical trial data to maximize the availability of relevant evidence for regulatory decisions in rare diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Other 12 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 26 28%
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 31 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,839,294
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#950
of 2,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,398
of 335,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#21
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 335,873 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 56% of its contemporaries.