↓ Skip to main content

Critical factors in the translation of improved antimicrobial strategies for medical implants and devices

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Materials, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Critical factors in the translation of improved antimicrobial strategies for medical implants and devices
Published in
Clinical Materials, September 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.043
Pubmed ID
Authors

David W. Grainger, Henny C. van der Mei, Paul C. Jutte, Jan J.A.M. van den Dungen, Marcus J. Schultz, Bernard F.A.M. van der Laan, Sebastian A.J. Zaat, Henk J. Busscher

Abstract

Biomaterials-associated infection incidence represents an increasing clinical challenge as more people gain access to medical device technologies worldwide and microbial resistance to current approaches mounts. Few reported antimicrobial approaches to implanted biomaterials ever get commercialized for physician use and patient benefit. This is not for lack of ideas since many thousands of claims to new approaches to antimicrobial efficacy are reported. Lack of translation of reported ideas into medical products approved for use, results from conflicting goals and purposes between the various participants involved in conception, validation, development, commercialization, safety and regulatory oversight, insurance reimbursement, and legal aspects of medical device innovation. The scientific causes, problems and impressive costs of the limiting clinical options for combating biomaterials-associated infection are well recognized. Demands for improved antimicrobial technologies constantly appear. Yet, the actual human, ethical and social costs and consequences of their occurrence are less articulated. Here, we describe several clinical cases of biomaterials-associated infections to illustrate the often-missing human elements of these infections. We identify the current societal forces at play in translating antimicrobial research concepts into clinical implant use and their often-orthogonal constituencies, missions and policies. We assert that in the current complex environment between researchers, funding agencies, physicians, patients, providers, producers, payers, regulatory agencies and litigators, opportunities for translatable successes are minimized under the various risks assumed in the translation process. This argues for an alternative approach to more effectively introduce new biomaterials and device technologies that can address the clinical issues by providing patients and medical practitioners new options for desperate clinical conditions ineffectively addressed by biomedical innovation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 2%
Unknown 160 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Student > Master 31 19%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Professor 7 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Engineering 24 15%
Chemistry 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Materials Science 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 43 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 August 2023.
All research outputs
#7,968,106
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Materials
#4,457
of 10,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,397
of 210,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Materials
#73
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 210,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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.