↓ Skip to main content

Osteogenic Protein-1

Overview of attention for article published in BioDrugs, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Osteogenic Protein-1
Published in
BioDrugs, August 2012
DOI 10.2165/00063030-200620040-00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Brown, Gordon Stock, Alpesh A. Patel, Chukwuka Okafor, Alexander Vaccaro

Abstract

The potentially revolutionary effect that bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs) could have on orthopaedic surgery has fueled an exhaustive research effort that continues today. Upwards of 1.5 million bone-grafting operations take place in the US annually, with the anterior and posterior iliac crest being the most common donor site for autologous bone graft. Harvesting autologous bone graft, however, is not benign. It is postulated that a synthetic bone graft containing BMPs would possess the characteristics of autologous bone that allow new bone formation: osteogenesis, osteoinduction, and osteoconduction, without the negative repercussions related to bone harvesting. As a result of the ensuing research following their discovery some 40 years ago by Marshall Urist, the basic science behind BMPs has been largely uncovered. New information on BMPs now comes from clinical trials regarding their utility and efficacy in surgical applications. To date, BMPs have been studied in skeletal bone surgery throughout the body, and have been found to be particularly useful in surgical applications such as spinal arthrodesis. Osteogenic protein-1 (OP-1), or recombinant human BMP-7, is one subtype of BMPs that has shown particular potential in clinical trials. Pre-clinical and clinical studies have, thus far, garnered OP-1 a Humanitarian Device Exemption approval for spinal applications in the US. As clinical trials with larger patient numbers and longer clinical follow-up are completed, the usefulness of OP-1 as a bone graft substitute will be better elucidated.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 43%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Chemistry 2 14%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from BioDrugs
#314
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,791
of 174,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioDrugs
#111
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 174,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.