↓ Skip to main content

Cellular Treatments for Spinal Cord Injury: The Time is Right for Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Cellular Treatments for Spinal Cord Injury: The Time is Right for Clinical Trials
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13311-011-0076-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael G. Fehlings, Reaz Vawda

Abstract

More than 1 million people in the United States live with a spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite medical advances, many patients with SCIs still experience substantial neurological disability, with loss of motor, sensory, and autonomic function. Cell therapy is ideally suited to address the multifactorial nature of the secondary events following SCI. Remarkable advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of SCI, structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging, image-guided micro-neurosurgical techniques, and transplantable cell biology have enabled the use of cell-based regenerative techniques in the clinic. It is important to note that there are more than a dozen recently completed, ongoing, or recruiting cell therapy clinical trials for SCI that reflect the views of many key stakeholders. The field of regenerative neuroscience has reached a stage in which the clinical trials are scientifically and ethically justified. Although experimental models and analysis methods and techniques continue to evolve, no model will completely replicate the human condition. It is recognized that more work with cervical models of contusive/compressive SCI are required in parallel with clinical trials. It is also important that the clinical translation of advances made through well-established and validated experimental approaches in animal models move forward to meet the compelling needs of individuals with SCI and to advance the field of regenerative neuroscience. However, it is imperative that such efforts at translation be done in the most rigorous and informed fashion to determine safety and possible efficacy, and to provide key information to clinicians and basic scientists, which will allow improvements in regenerative techniques and the validation and refinement of existing preclinical animal models and research approaches. The field of regenerative neuroscience should not be stalled at the animal model stage, but instead the clinical trials need to be focused, safe, and ethical, backed up by a robust, translationally relevant preclinical research strategy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 18%
Neuroscience 15 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,542,275
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#369
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,978
of 149,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 149,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.