↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Article details
Title
An algorithm for utilizing peripheral blood CD34 count as a predictor of the need for plerixafor in autologous stem cell mobilization—cost‐effectiveness analysis
Published in
Journal of Clinical Apheresis, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/jca.21256
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Certain patients who receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) for autologous hematopoietic stem cell (AHSC) collection fail to mobilize well enough to proceed with transplant. When plerixafor is used with GCSF, the likelihood of achieving the CD34⁺ stem cell target in fewer collections is higher; plerixafor use in all patients is unlikely to be cost-effective. This study retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness of utilizing a peripheral blood CD34⁺ stem cell count (PBCD34) ≤8/µL on day 4 of GCSF-based AHSC mobilization as a threshold for plerixafor administration, and compared the efficacy of collection and cost analysis using historical controls. All patients in the study cohort reached their CD34⁺ targets in ≤3 collections. Significantly more patients who received plerixafor + GCSF versus GCSF alone reached their CD34⁺ target in one collection (P = 0.045); however, there were no significant differences in the number of collections or in cumulative product yields. The historical cohort had 10.3% mobilization failures; the number of collections per patient needed to reach the target was significantly higher in the historical cohort versus study cohort (P = 0.001) as was the number of patients requiring more than one collection to reach their target (P = 0.023). However, the average cost per patient was also significantly higher in the study cohort (P = 0.025). Further refinement of the algorithm may reduce the difference in cost between the two mobilization strategies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
France 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Researcher 3 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Engineering 2 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
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 29 March 2013.
All research outputs
#19,294,717
of 24,565,648 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Apheresis
#323
of 462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,229
of 196,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Apheresis
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,565,648 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 462 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 196,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.