↓ Skip to main content

Autologous olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in human paraplegia: a 3-year clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
367 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Autologous olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in human paraplegia: a 3-year clinical trial
Published in
Brain, August 2008
DOI 10.1093/brain/awn173
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Mackay-Sim, F. Féron, J. Cochrane, L. Bassingthwaighte, C. Bayliss, W. Davies, P. Fronek, C. Gray, G. Kerr, P. Licina, A. Nowitzke, C. Perry, P.A.S. Silburn, S. Urquhart, T. Geraghty

Abstract

Olfactory ensheathing cells show promise in preclinical animal models as a cell transplantation therapy for repair of the injured spinal cord. This is a report of a clinical trial of autologous transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells into the spinal cord in six patients with complete, thoracic paraplegia. We previously reported on the methods of surgery and transplantation and the safety aspects of the trial 1 year after transplantation. Here we address the overall design of the trial and the safety of the procedure, assessed during a period of 3 years following the transplantation surgery. All patients were assessed at entry into the trial and regularly during the period of the trial. Clinical assessments included medical, psychosocial, radiological and neurological, as well as specialized tests of neurological and functional deficits (standard American Spinal Injury Association and Functional Independence Measure assessments). Quantitative test included neurophysiological tests of sensory and motor function below the level of injury. The trial was a Phase I/IIa design whose main aim was to test the feasibility and safety of transplantation of autologous olfactory ensheathing cells into the injured spinal cord in human paraplegia. The design included a control group who did not receive surgery, otherwise closely matched to the transplant recipient group. This group acted as a control for the assessors, who were blind to the treatment status of the patients. The control group also provided the opportunity for preliminary assessment of the efficacy of the transplantation. There were no adverse findings 3 years after autologous transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells into spinal cords injured at least 2 years prior to transplantation. The magnetic resonance images (MRIs) at 3 years showed no change from preoperative MRIs or intervening MRIs at 1 and 2 years, with no evidence of any tumour of introduced cells and no development of post-traumatic syringomyelia or other adverse radiological findings. There were no significant functional changes in any patients and no neuropathic pain. In one transplant recipient, there was an improvement over 3 segments in light touch and pin prick sensitivity bilaterally, anteriorly and posteriorly. We conclude that transplantation of autologous olfactory ensheathing cells into the injured spinal cord is feasible and is safe up to 3 years of post-implantation, however, this conclusion should be considered preliminary because of the small number of trial patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 254 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 16%
Researcher 42 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Student > Master 28 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 6%
Other 59 22%
Unknown 49 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 19%
Neuroscience 34 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 62 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#836,328
of 23,563,389 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#846
of 7,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,681
of 84,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#1
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,563,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 84,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.