↓ Skip to main content

Neutrophils—A Key Component of Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Shock, December 2013
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Neutrophils—A Key Component of Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury
Published in
Shock, December 2013
DOI 10.1097/shk.0000000000000044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoe Victoria Schofield, Trent Martin Woodruff, Reena Halai, Mike Chia-Lun Wu, Matthew Allister Cooper

Abstract

Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) is a common occurrence following myocardial infarction, transplantation, stroke, and trauma that can lead to multiple organ failure, which remains the foremost cause of death in critically ill patients. Current therapeutic strategies for IRI are mainly palliative, and there is an urgent requirement for a therapeutic that could prevent or reverse tissue damage caused by IRI. Neutrophils are the primary responders following ischemia and reperfusion and represent important components in the protracted inflammatory response and severity associated with IRI. Experimental studies demonstrate neutrophil infiltration at the site of ischemia and show that inducing neutropenia can protect organs from IRI. In this review, we highlight the mechanisms involved in neutrophil recruitment, activation, and adherence and how this contributes to disease severity in IRI. Inhibiting neutrophil mobilization, tissue recruitment, and ultimately neutrophil-associated activation of local and systemic inflammatory responses may have therapeutic potential in the amelioration of local and remote tissue damage following IRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 136 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 23%
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 33 23%
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 22 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,561,374
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Shock
#151
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,707
of 320,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shock
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 320,964 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.