↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive review of platelet storage methods for use in the treatment of active hemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Transfusion, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Comprehensive review of platelet storage methods for use in the treatment of active hemorrhage
Published in
Transfusion, April 2016
DOI 10.1111/trf.13504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elissa M Milford, Michael C Reade

Abstract

This review considers the various methods currently in use, or under investigation, for the storage of platelets intended for use in the treatment of active hemorrhage. The current standard practice of storing platelets at room temperature (RT) (20°C-24°C) optimizes circulating time, but at the expense of hemostatic function and logistical considerations. A number of alternatives are under investigation. Novel storage media additives appear to attenuate the deleterious changes that affect RT stored platelets. Cold storage was originally abandoned due to the poor circulating time of platelets stored at 4°C, but such platelets may actually be more hemostatically effective, with a number of other advantages, compared to RT stored platelets. Periodically re-warming cold stored platelets (temperature cycling, TC) may combine the hemostatic efficacy of cold stored platelets with the longer circulating times of RT storage. Alternatives to liquid storage include cryopreservation (freezing) or lyophilization (freeze-drying). The former has had some limited clinical use and larger clinical trials are underway, while the latter is still in the preclinical stage with promising in vitro and in vivo results. The importance of platelet transfusion in the management of active hemorrhage is now well accepted, so it is timely that platelet storage methods are reviewed with consideration of not only their circulating time, but also their hemostatic efficacy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,885,607
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Transfusion
#4,176
of 4,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,078
of 304,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transfusion
#73
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 304,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.