↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s39024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Del Tacca, Pasqualetti, Giovanni Gori, Pasquale Pepe, Antonello Di Paolo, Marianna Lastella, Ferdinando De Negri, Corrado Blandizzi

Abstract

The primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of bioequivalence in the postmarketing setting. As a secondary exploratory aim, the pharmacodynamic effects of the two formulations were also evaluated by means of rating scales following hyperalgesia induced by cutaneous freeze injury.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,998,952
of 4,505,692 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#206
of 397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,054
of 101,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,505,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 397 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 101,294 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.