↓ Skip to main content

Australasian College of Sports Physicians—position statement: the place of mesenchymal stem/stromal cell therapies in sport and exercise medicine

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
36 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
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.
Title
Australasian College of Sports Physicians—position statement: the place of mesenchymal stem/stromal cell therapies in sport and exercise medicine
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095711
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamish Osborne, Lynley Anderson, Peter Burt, Mark Young, David Gerrard

Abstract

This Position Statement has been written expressly for members of the Australasian College of Sports Physicians (ACSP); however, it may also be of interest to the wider medical community, sporting organisations, athletes and the general community. It has been informed by a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and the opinions of kindred organisations. This statement outlines the use of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies in the broad context of Sport and Exercise Medicine, recognising that every medical practitioner should respect: (1) the evidence for the therapeutic use of MSCs and (2) the priority for patient health and welfare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 16%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 34%
Sports and Recreations 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 11 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,150,684
of 23,485,296 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#1,975
of 6,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,120
of 393,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#57
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,296 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 393,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 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 53% of its contemporaries.