↓ Skip to main content

The Role of microRNA Markers in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome Prediction of Spinal Cord Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
The Role of microRNA Markers in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome Prediction of Spinal Cord Injury
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating condition that affects many people worldwide. Treatment focuses on controlling secondary injury cascade and improving regeneration. It has recently been suggested that both the secondary injury cascade and the regenerative process are heavily regulated by microRNAs (miRNAs). The measurement of specific biomarkers could improve our understanding of the disease processes, and thereby provide clinicians with the opportunity to guide treatment and predict clinical outcomes after SCI. A variety of miRNAs exhibit important roles in processes of inflammation, cell death, and regeneration. These miRNAs can be used as diagnostic tools for predicting outcome after SCI. In addition, miRNAs can be used in the treatment of SCI and its symptoms. Significant laboratory and clinical evidence exist to show that miRNAs could be used as robust diagnostic and therapeutic tools for the treatment of patients with SCI. Further clinical studies are warranted to clarify the importance of each subtype of miRNA in SCI management.

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 39 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 %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 31%
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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
#11,711,869
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#456
of 6,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,650
of 339,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,051 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 339,992 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.