| Title |
Diabetes-associated macrovascular complications: cell-based therapy a new tool?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Endocrine, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12020-013-9936-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maddalena Gili, Alberto Orsello, Sara Gallo, Maria Felice Brizzi |
| Abstract |
Diabetes mellitus and its ongoing macrovascular complications represent one of the major health problems around the world. Rise in obesity and population ages correlate with the increased incidence of diabetes. This highlights the need for novel approaches to prevent and treat this pandemic. The discovery of a reservoir of stem/progenitors in bone marrow and in mesenchymal tissue has attracted interest of both biologists and clinicians. A number of preclinical and clinical trials were developed to explore their potential clinical impact, as target or vehicle, in different clinical settings, including diabetes complications. Currently, bone marrow, peripheral blood, mesenchymal, and adipose tissues have been used as stem/progenitor cell sources. However, evidences have been provided that both bone marrow and circulating progenitor cells are dysfunctional in diabetes. These observations along with the growing advantages in genetic manipulation have spurred researchers to exploit ex vivo manipulated cells to overcome these hurdles. In this article, we provide an overview of data relevant to stem-progenitors potential clinical application in revascularization and/or vascular repair. Moreover, the hurdles at using progenitor cells in diabetic patients will be also discussed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 16% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
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 04 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,333,600
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from Endocrine
#1,150
of 1,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,058
of 199,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Endocrine
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 199,313 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.