↓ Skip to main content

Hereditary Angioedema: The Economics of Treatment of an Orphan Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Hereditary Angioedema: The Economics of Treatment of an Orphan Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Raymond Lumry

Abstract

This review will discuss the cost burden of hereditary angioedema on patients, healthcare systems, and society. The impact of availability of and access to novel and specific therapies on morbidity, mortality, and the overall burden of disease will be explored along with potential changes in treatment paradigms to improve effectiveness and reduce cost of treatment. The prevalence of orphan diseases, legislative incentives to encourage development of orphan disease therapies and the impact of orphan disease treatment on healthcare payment systems will be discussed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,446,749
of 23,343,453 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#605
of 5,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,146
of 337,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#14
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,343,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 337,760 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.