↓ Skip to main content

How can we improve tracking of transplanted tissue in the United States?

Overview of attention for article published in Cell and Tissue Banking, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 287)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
How can we improve tracking of transplanted tissue in the United States?
Published in
Cell and Tissue Banking, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10561-013-9408-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reena Mahajan, Matthew J. Kuehnert

Abstract

Currently an estimated two million tissues are distributed for transplantation annually. With increasing use of recovered tissue, clusters of transplant-transmitted infection have shown the difficulty of tracking tissues from an infected donor to the recipient. The challenge of tissue tracking to multiple transplant recipients was illustrated in a recent investigation of transmission of hepatitis C virus infection from a donor of organs and tissues. When a tissue bank issued a recall of the donated tissue, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was notified to assist public health authorities; the mean time to locate and notify the physicians who had transplanted the tissue was 13 days, while the mean time to notify, inform, and test the patients was 29 days. Lack of common coding and nomenclature was one of the key challenges in tracking tissue to the recipient. Some changes that could improve timeliness in the event of a recall includes: (1) standardized tissue nomenclature and coding through unique donor identifiers; (2) tissue traceability requirements using systems similar to that used for blood products; (3) a surveillance system for adverse events that provides feedback at the provider level.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 November 2013.
All research outputs
#5,657,096
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#50
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,621
of 306,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 306,502 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them