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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The future development of bacteria fighting medical devices: the role of graphene oxide
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Expert Review of Medical Devices, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1080/17434440.2016.1245612 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valentina Palmieri, Massimiliano Papi, Claudio Conti, Gabriele Ciasca, Giuseppe Maulucci, Marco De Spirito |
| Abstract |
The clinical challenge that research on antibacterial coatings faces nowadays is the need of reduction of resistant bacterial infections, major source of implant rejection and repeated surgery. In order to avoid microorganisms attachment and biofilm formation, coating materials on medical devices have been developed with shortcomings represented by short-term durability and induction of new mechanisms of bacterial resistance. Graphene-based films and hydrogel could represent the next generation protective coatings due to their excellent mechanical, chemical and thermal properties, high nanoparticle adsorption and antibacterial action. In this short commentary, we will report the recent developments of graphene oxide based coatings. Graphene oxide is a water-soluble derivative of graphene that allows high drug loading and miscibility with polymers, making it mouldable in any desired shape. Recent applications in wound healing and tissue engineering will be discussed as well as critical issues prior to clinical use of graphene oxide coatings. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Materials Science | 14 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
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 06 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,801,390
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#65
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,849
of 311,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 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 703 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 311,560 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.