| Title |
The importance of ethic in the field of human tissue banking
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell and Tissue Banking, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10561-010-9232-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Morales Pedraza, Marisa Roma Herson |
| Abstract |
A tissue bank is accountable before the community in fulfilling the expectations of tissue donors, their families and recipients. The expected output from the altruistic donation is that safe and high quality human tissue grafts will be provided for the medical treatment of patients. Thus, undertakings of tissue banks have to be not only authorised and audited by national competent health care authorities, but also comply with a strong ethical code, a code of practices and ethical principles. Ethical practice in the field of tissue banking requires the setting of principles, the identification of possible deviations and the establishment of mechanisms that will detect and hinder abuses that may occur during the procurement, processing and distribution of human tissues for transplantation. The opinions and suggestions manifested by the authors in this paper may not be necessarily a reflection of those within the institutions or community they are linked to. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,183,419
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#142
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,800
of 180,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 180,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.