| Title |
Clinical utility of orally disintegrating olanzapine in Chinese patients with schizophrenia: a review of effectiveness, patient preference, adherence, and other properties
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s39055 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jingping Zhao, Jianjun Ou, Haibo Xue, Li Liu, William Montgomery, Tamas Treuer |
| Abstract |
The primary objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of orally disintegrating olanzapine in Chinese populations. A systematic literature search was conducted using databases covering international and Chinese journals, ClinicalTrials.gov, and internal and external trial registries at Eli Lilly and Company using search terms related to target countries (People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) and orally disintegrating olanzapine treatment. A publication and one clinical study report were retrieved. The clinical study showed orally disintegrating olanzapine and the standard oral tablet to have similar efficacy and tolerability profiles. A bioequivalence study has shown that orally disintegrating olanzapine and the standard oral tablet have similar pharmacokinetic profiles. Orally disintegrating olanzapine and the standard oral tablet have similar efficacy and tolerability profiles. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 35% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 59% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 February 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#2,328
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,607
of 322,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#55
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 322,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.