↓ Skip to main content

Stem Cell-Based Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,564)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
5 Redditors
podcasts
2 podcasts

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Stem Cell-Based Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury
Published in
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1080/10790268.2009.11760761
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in loss of nervous tissue and consequently loss of motor and sensory function. There is no treatment available that restores the injury-induced loss of function to a degree that an independent life can be guaranteed. Transplantation of stem cells or progenitors may support spinal cord repair. Stem cells are characterized by self-renewal and their ability to become any cell in an organism. Promising results have been obtained in experimental models of SCI. Stem cells can be directed to differentiate into neurons or glia in vitro, which can be used for replacement of neural cells lost after SCI. Neuroprotective and axon regeneration-promoting effects have also been credited to transplanted stem cells. There are still issues related to stem cell transplantation that need to be resolved, including ethical concerns. This paper reviews the current status of stem cell application for spinal cord repair.

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 profiles of 7 X users 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 80 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 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 38 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Engineering 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 37 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 04 October 2024.
All research outputs
#888,100
of 34,612,600 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
#8
of 1,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,156
of 338,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
#2
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,612,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 338,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.