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 |
Consensus of Clinical Neurorestorative Progress in Patients with Complete Chronic Spinal Cord Injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell Transplantation, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3727/096368914x684952 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hongyun Huang, Tiansheng Sun, Lin Chen, Gustavo Moviglia, Elena Chernykh, Klaus Von Wild, Haluk Deda, Kyung-Sun Kang, Anand Kumar, Sang Ryong Jeon, Shaocheng Zhang, Giorgio Brunelli, Albert Bohbot, Maria Dolors Soler, Jianjun Li, Alexandre Fogaça Cristante, Haitao Xi, Gelu Onose, Helmut Kern, Ugo Carraro, Hooshang Saberi, Hari Shanker Sharma, Alok Sharma, Xijing He, Dafin Muresanu, Shiqing Feng, Ali Otom, Dajue Wang, Koichi Iwatsu, Jike Lu, Adeeb Al-Zoubi |
| Abstract |
Currently, there are lack effective therapeutic methods to restore neurological function for chronic complete spinal cord injury (SCI) by conventional treatment. Neurorestorative strategies with positive preclinical results have been translated to the clinic and some patients have gotten benefits and their quality of life has improved. These strategies include cell therapy, neurostimulation or neuromodulation, neuroprosthesis, neurotization or nerve bridging, and neurorehabilitation. The aim of this consensus by thirty one experts from 20 countries is to show the objective evidence of clinical neurorestoration for chronic complete SCI by the above mentioned neurorestorative strategies. Complete chronic SCI patients may no longer be told "nothing can be done". The translation to the clinic of more effective preclinical neurorestorative strategies should be encouraged as fast as possible in order to benefit patients with incurable CNS diseases. This manuscript is published as part of the International Association of Neurorestoratology (IANR) special issue of Cell Transplantation. |
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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 20% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
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 17 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,380,628
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Cell Transplantation
#1,396
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,420
of 305,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Transplantation
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 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 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 305,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.