↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for human leukocyte antigen B (HLA‐B) genotype and allopurinol dosing: 2015 update

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, July 2015
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for human leukocyte antigen B (HLA‐B) genotype and allopurinol dosing: 2015 update
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/cpt.161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Y Saito, L K Stamp, K E Caudle, M S Hershfield, E M McDonagh, J T Callaghan, W Tassaneeyakul, T Mushiroda, N Kamatani, B R Goldspiel, E J Phillips, T E Klein, M T M Lee

Abstract

The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines for HLA-B*58:01 Genotype and Allopurinol Dosing was originally published in February 2013. We reviewed recent literature and concluded that none of the evidence would change the therapeutic recommendations in the original guideline; therefore, the original publication remains clinically current. However, we have updated the supplemental material and included additional resources for applying CPIC guidelines into the electronic health record. Up-to-date information can be found at PharmGKB (http://www.pharmgkb.org). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,464,381
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#669
of 4,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,267
of 267,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 267,401 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 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.