↓ Skip to main content

Biomaterials for spinal cord repair

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience Bulletin, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Biomaterials for spinal cord repair
Published in
Neuroscience Bulletin, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12264-013-1362-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes E. Haggerty, Martin Oudega

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in permanent loss of function leading to often devastating personal, economic and social problems. A contributing factor to the permanence of SCI is that damaged axons do not regenerate, which prevents the re-establishment of axonal circuits involved in function. Many groups are working to develop treatments that address the lack of axon regeneration after SCI. The emergence of biomaterials for regeneration and increased collaboration between engineers, basic and translational scientists, and clinicians hold promise for the development of effective therapies for SCI. A plethora of biomaterials is available and has been tested in various models of SCI. Considering the clinical relevance of contusion injuries, we primarily focus on polymers that meet the specific criteria for addressing this type of injury. Biomaterials may provide structural support and/or serve as a delivery vehicle for factors to arrest growth inhibition and promote axonal growth. Designing materials to address the specific needs of the damaged central nervous system is crucial and possible with current technology. Here, we review the most prominent materials, their optimal characteristics, and their potential roles in repairing and regenerating damaged axons following SCi.

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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 93 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 18%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 22%
Engineering 15 15%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Materials Science 7 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,274,524
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience Bulletin
#360
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,164
of 196,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience Bulletin
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 196,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.