Therapeutic drug monitoring | Journament

Journal Ranking

#4527 / 33,959
📉 Poor
Overall Score
38.1/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
35
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 4 weeks ago

Therapeutic drug monitoring

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
Quality Widget - Embed on Your Website

Display your journal's quality scores on your website with our beautiful, self-contained widget. Choose between two embedding methods below.

One-Line JavaScript Embed (Recommended):
Advantages:
  • ✅ Simpler integration (just one line of code)
  • ✅ Better SEO (content is in same DOM)
  • ✅ No iframe limitations
  • ✅ Fully self-contained (no dependencies)
  • ✅ Works on any website regardless of CSS framework
  • ✅ Clickable badges link to full journal page
iFrame Embed Code:
Limitations:
  • ⚠️ Display-only (scores not clickable due to iframe constraints)
  • ⚠️ May have SEO limitations
  • ⚠️ Potential CORS/CSP issues on some websites
Preview:
Indexings
scopus ncbi ulakbim sci
Short Name Ther Drug Monit
Abbreviated Name ther drug monit
ISSN 1536-3694
Aim and Scope
URL http://journals.lww.com/drug-monitoring/pages/default.aspx
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (73 total)

2010
Computer-assisted cyclosporine dosing performs better than traditional dosing in renal transplant recipients: results of a pilot study.
Asberg, Anders;Falck, Pål;Undset, Liv H;Dørje, Christina;Holdaas, Hallvard;Hartmann, Anders;Midtvedt, Karsten;
Vol. 32 , No. 2 , pp. 152-8
379 views DOI Abstract
2019
Synthetic cathinones and their potential interactions with prescription drugs.
Contrucci, Ramon R;Brunt, Tibor M;Inan, Funda;Franssen, Eric J F;Hondebrink, Laura;
371 views DOI Abstract
2017
Relationship Between the CYP2C19 Phenotype Using the Voriconazole-to-Voriconazole N-Oxide Plasma Concentration Ratio and Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Japanese Patients With Different CYP2C19 Genotypes.
Niioka, Takenori;Fujishima, Naohito;Abumiya, Maiko;Yamashita, Takaya;Ubukawa, Kumi;Nara, Miho;Fujishima, Masumi;Takahashi, Naoto;Miura, Masatomo;
Vol. 39 , No. 5 , pp. 514-521
366 views DOI Abstract
2008
Suboptimal aminoglycoside dosing in critically ill patients
Rea RS;Capitano B;Bies R;Bigos KL;Smith R;Lee H;;
Vol. 30 , No. 6 , pp. -
338 views Abstract
2016
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Everolimus: A Consensus Report.
Shipkova, Maria;Hesselink, Dennis A;Holt, David W;Billaud, Eliane M;van Gelder, Teun;Kunicki, Paweł K;Brunet, Mercè;Budde, Klemens;Barten, Markus J;De Simone, Paolo;Wieland, Eberhard;López, Olga Millán;Masuda, Satohiro;Seger, Christoph;Picard, Nicolas;Oellerich, Michael;Langman, Loralie J;Wallemacq, Pierre;Morris, Raymond G;Thompson, Carol;Marquet, Pierre;
Vol. 38 , No. 2 , pp. 143-69
333 views DOI Abstract
2019
Tacrolimus area under the concentration versus time curve monitoring, using home-based volumetric absorptive capillary microsampling.
Gustavsen, Marte Theie;Midtvedt, Karsten;Vethe, Nils Tore;Robertsen, Ida;Bergan, Stein;Åsberg, Anders;
323 views DOI Abstract
1999
Impact of goal-oriented and model-based clinical pharmacokinetic dosing of aminoglycosides on clinical outcome: a cost-effectiveness analysis
van Lent-Evers NA;Mathôt RA;Geus WP;van Hout BA;Vinks AA;;
Vol. 21 , No. 1 , pp. -
322 views Abstract
2019
Limited Sampling Strategies Supporting Individualized Dose Adjustment of Intravenous Busulfan in Children and Young Adults.
Teitelbaum, Zvi;Nassar, Laila;Scherb, Inna;Fink, Dorit;Ring, Gil;Lurie, Yael;Krivoy, Norberto;Bentur, Yedidia;Efrati, Edna;Kurnik, Daniel;
319 views DOI Abstract
2017
Intrapatient Variability in the Pharmacokinetics of Etanercept Maintenance Treatment.
van Bezooijen, Ji S;Schreurs, Marco W J;Koch, Birgit C P;Velthuis, Henk Te;van Doorn, Martijn B A;Prens, Errol P;van Gelder, Teun;
Vol. 39 , No. 4 , pp. 333-338
310 views DOI Abstract
2020
Case of Suboptimal Linezolid Exposure: Is There a Role for Pharmacogenetics?
Baldelli, Sara;Montrasio, Cristina;Cheli, Stefania;Viganò, Ottavia;Bini, Teresa;Egidi, Marcello;Cattaneo, Dario;
Vol. 42 , No. 2 , pp. 347-348
278 views DOI
View All 73 Articles
38
Overall
Poor
31
35
30
40
35
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.1/100

Tier: Poor

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

31.1/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

35.0/100

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

30.0/100

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

40.0/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

34.5/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

50.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Ethics & Transparency Score

0.0/100

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

0.0/100

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

0.0/100

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

0.0/100

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

0.0/100

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.