↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0455-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamás Zelei, Mária J. Molnár, Márta Szegedi, Zoltán Kaló

Abstract

In case of orphan drugs applicability of the standard health technology assessment (HTA) process is limited due to scarcity of good clinical and health economic evidence. Financing these premium priced drugs is more controversial in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region where the public funding resources are more restricted, and health economic justification should be an even more important aspect of policy decisions than in higher income European countries. To explore and summarize the recent scientific evidence on value drivers related to the health technology assessment of ODs with a special focus on the perspective of third party payers in CEE countries. The review aims to list all potentially relevant value drivers in the reimbursement process of orphan drugs. A systematic literature review was performed; PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched for relevant publications until April 2015. Extracted data were summarized along key HTA elements. From the 2664 identified publications, 87 contained relevant information on the evaluation criteria of orphan drugs, but only 5 had direct information from the CEE region. The presentation of good clinical evidence seems to play a key role especially since this should be the basis of cost-effectiveness analyses, which have more importance in resource-constrained economies. Due to external price referencing of pharmaceuticals, the relative budget impact of orphan drugs is expected to be higher in CEE than in Western European (WE) countries unless accessibility of patients remains more limited in poorer European regions. Equity principles based on disease prevalence and non-availability of alternative treatment options may increase the price premium, however, societies must have some control on prices and a rationale based on multiple criteria in reimbursement decisions. The evaluation of orphan medicines should include multiple criteria to appropriately measure the clinical added value of orphan drugs. The search found only a small number of studies coming from CEE, therefore European policies on orphan drugs may be based largely on experiences in WE countries. More research should be done in the future in CEE because financing high-priced orphan drugs involves a greater burden for these countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 24%
Student > Master 25 20%
Other 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 29 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 30 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,256,514
of 14,162,707 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#720
of 1,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,533
of 265,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#20
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,162,707 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 265,905 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 51% of its contemporaries.