| Title |
Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Scaffolds and Multipotent Stromal Cells (MSCs) in Regenerative Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-016-9684-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elena Dai Prè, Giamaica Conti, Andrea Sbarbati |
| Abstract |
Traditional methods for tissue regeneration commonly used synthetic scaffolds to regenerate human tissues. However, they had several limitations, such as foreign body reactions and short time duration. In order to overcome these problems, scaffolds made of natural polymers are preferred. One of the most suitable and widely used materials to fabricate these scaffolds is hyaluronic acid. Hyaluronic acid is the primary component of the extracellular matrix of the human connective tissue. It is an ideal material for scaffolds used in tissue regeneration, thanks to its properties of biocompatibility, ease of chemical functionalization and degradability. In the last few years, especially from 2010, scientists have seen that the cell-based engineering of these natural scaffolds allows obtaining even better results in terms of tissue regeneration and the research started to grow in this direction. Multipotent stromal cells, also known as mesenchymal stem cells, plastic-adherent cells isolated from bone marrow and other mesenchymal tissues, with self-renew and multi-potency properties are ideal candidates for this aim. Normally, they are pre-seeded onto these scaffolds before their implantation in vivo. This review discusses the use of hyaluronic acid-based scaffolds together with multipotent stromal cells, as a very promising tool in regenerative medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Comoros | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Ireland | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 8 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,191,334
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#140
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,981
of 329,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 329,876 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.