↓ Skip to main content

Position statement on the role of healthcare professionals, patient organizations and industry in European Reference Networks

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Position statement on the role of healthcare professionals, patient organizations and industry in European Reference Networks
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0383-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla E. M. Hollak, Marieke Biegstraaten, Matthias R. Baumgartner, Nadia Belmatoug, Bruno Bembi, Annet Bosch, Martijn Brouwers, Hanka Dekker, Dries Dobbelaere, Marc Engelen, Marike C. Groenendijk, Robin Lachmann, Janneke G. Langendonk, Mirjam Langeveld, Gabor Linthorst, Eva Morava, Bwee Tien Poll-The, Shamima Rahman, M. Estela Rubio-Gozalbo, Ute Spiekerkoetter, Eileen Treacy, Ronald Wanders, Johannes Zschocke, Rob Hagendijk

Abstract

A call from the EU for the set-up of European Reference Networks (ERNs) is expected to be launched in the first quarter of 2016. ERNs are intended to improve the care for patients with low prevalent or rare diseases throughout the EU by, among other things, facilitating the pooling and exchange of experience and knowledge and the development of protocols and guidelines. In the past, for example where costly orphan drugs have been concerned, industry has played an important role in facilitating consensus meetings and publication of guidelines. The ERNs should provide a unique opportunity for healthcare professionals and patients to lead these activities in an independent way. However, currently costs for networking activities are not to be covered by EU funds and alternative sources of funding are being explored. There is growing concern that any involvement of the industry in the funding of ERNs and their core activities may create a risk of undue influence. To date, the European Commission has not been explicit in how industry will be engaged in ERNs. We believe that public funding and a conflict of interest policy are needed at the level of the ERNs, Centers of Expertise (CEs), healthcare professionals and patient organizations with the aim of maintaining scientific integrity and independence. Specific attention is needed where it concerns the development of clinical practice guidelines. A proposal for a conflict of interest policy is presented, which may support the development of a framework to facilitate collaboration, safeguard professional integrity and to establish and maintain public acceptability and trust among patients, their organizations and the general public.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,692,900
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#705
of 2,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,966
of 398,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#14
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 398,948 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.