| Title |
A porcine-cholecyst-derived scaffold for treating full thickness lacerated skin wounds in dogs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Veterinary Research Communications, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11259-018-9731-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Satheesan Karthika, Sainulabdeen Anoop, C. B. Devanand, M. K. Narayanan, Madhavan Unni, Saji Eassow, Thapasimuthu Anilkumar |
| Abstract |
In regenerative medicine, despite the chances of graft-rejection, scaffolds prepared from extracellular matrices of various mammalian organs/tissues are widely used. Graft-assisted healing of full thickness skin-wounds is a major use of these bioscaffolds. Therefore, considering its prospective clinical use as a wound healing matrix, this study evaluated the healing potential of porcine cholecyst-derived scaffold (CDS) prepared by a non-detergent/enzymatic method for treating naturally occurring full thickness lacerated wounds in dogs. The CDS caused, in comparison with a commercial-grade bioscaffold prepared out of bovine dermal collagen (BDC), faster healing with respect to the wound healing parameters like peripheral tissue oedema, necrosis (amount and type), indurations, granulation tissue formation and the extent of re-epithelialisation. After 28 days of the treatment, the wound area (mean + SE) reduced from 27.60 ± 8.96 cm2 to 0.19+ 0.18 cm2 and 21.39 ± 5.48 to 6.59 ± 2.60 cm2 in CDS and BDC treated animals, with a reduction in wound sizes by 98.95 ± 2.09% and 54.53 ± 15.90 respectively. By this time, complete wound healing was observed in at least 75% of the former and 25% of the later groups. The CDS was deemed as a candidate bioscaffold for treating full thickness lacerated skin wounds in dogs. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
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 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,359,320
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research Communications
#253
of 482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,978
of 331,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research Communications
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 482 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 331,041 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.