| Title |
Platelet-rich plasma: combinational treatment modalities for musculoskeletal conditions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers of Medicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11684-017-0551-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabel Andia, Michele Abate |
| Abstract |
Current research on common musculoskeletal problems, including osteoarticular conditions, tendinopathies, and muscle injuries, focuses on regenerative translational medicine. Platelet-rich plasma therapies have emerged as a potential approach to enhance tissue repair and regeneration. Platelet-rich plasma application aims to provide supraphysiological concentrations of platelets and optionally leukocytes at injured/pathological tissues mimicking the initial stages of healing. However, the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma is controversial in chronic diseases because patients' outcomes show partial improvements. Platelet-rich plasma can be customized to specific conditions by selecting the most appropriate formulation and timing for application or by combining platelet-rich plasma with synergistic or complementary treatments. To achieve this goal, researchers should identify and enhance the main mechanisms of healing. In this review, the interactions between platelet-rich plasma and healing mechanisms were addressed and research opportunities for customized treatment modalities were outlined. The development of combinational platelet-rich plasma treatments that can be used safely and effectively to manipulate healing mechanisms would be valuable and would provide insights into the processes involved in physiological healing and pathological failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 38% |
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 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,957,541
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers of Medicine
#158
of 351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,587
of 327,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers of Medicine
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 327,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.