↓ Skip to main content

Using VigiBase to Identify Substandard Medicines: Detection Capacity and Key Prerequisites

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Using VigiBase to Identify Substandard Medicines: Detection Capacity and Key Prerequisites
Published in
Drug Safety, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40264-015-0271-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Juhlin, Ghazaleh Karimi, Maria Andér, Sara Camilli, Mukesh Dheda, Tan Siew Har, Rokiah Isahak, Su-Jung Lee, Sarah Vaughan, Pia Caduff, G. Niklas Norén

Abstract

Substandard medicines, whether the result of intentional manipulation or lack of compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) or good distribution practice (GDP), pose a significant potential threat to patient safety. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting systems can contribute to identification of quality problems that cause unwanted and/or harmful effects, and to identification of clusters of lack of efficacy. In 2011, the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) constructed a novel algorithm to identify reporting patterns suggestive of substandard medicines in spontaneous reporting, and applied it to VigiBase(®), the World Health Organization's global individual case safety report database. The algorithm identified some historical clusters related to substandard products, which were later able to be confirmed in the literature or by contact with national centres (NCs). As relevant and detailed information is often lacking in the VigiBase reports but might be available at the reporting NC, further evaluation of the algorithm was undertaken with involvement from NCs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 7 18%
Unspecified 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 21%
Unspecified 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 4 11%

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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,175,775
of 14,572,140 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#489
of 1,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,953
of 215,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,572,140 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 1,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 215,144 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 61% of its contemporaries.