↓ Skip to main content

Drug safety: withdrawn medications are only part of the picture

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Drug safety: withdrawn medications are only part of the picture
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0579-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel S. B. Rawson

Abstract

In a research article published in BMC Medicine, Onakpoya and colleagues provide a historical review of withdrawals of medications for safety reasons. However, withdrawn medications are only one part of the picture about how regulatory agencies manage drug risks. Moreover, medications introduced before the increased pre-marketing regulations and post-marketing monitoring systems instituted after the thalidomide tragedy have little relevance when considering the present drug safety picture because the circumstances under which they were introduced were completely different. To more fully understand drug safety management and regulatory agency actions, withdrawals should be evaluated within the setting and timeframe in which the medications are approved, which requires information about approvals and safety warnings. Studies are needed that provide a more comprehensive current picture of the identification and evaluation of drug safety risks as well as how regulatory agencies deal with them. Please see related research article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0553-2.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,158,317
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,346
of 3,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,612
of 400,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#40
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 400,824 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.