↓ Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of the ReCell® Device and Autologous Split-Thickness Meshed Skin Graft in the Treatment of Acute Burn Injuries

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of burn care & research, May 2018
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 (#7 of 2,103)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
12 X users
patent
8 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
A Comparative Study of the ReCell® Device and Autologous Split-Thickness Meshed Skin Graft in the Treatment of Acute Burn Injuries
Published in
Journal of burn care & research, May 2018
DOI 10.1093/jbcr/iry029
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Early excision and autografting are standard care for deeper burns. However, donor sites are a source of significant morbidity. To address this, the ReCell® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device (ReCell) was designed for use at the point-of-care to prepare a noncultured, autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) capable of epidermal regeneration using minimal donor skin. A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of ReCell vs meshed split-thickness skin grafts (STSG, Control) for the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns. Effectiveness measures were assessed to 1 year for both ASCS and Control treatment sites and donor sites, including the incidence of healing, scarring, and pain. At 4 weeks, 98% of the ASCS-treated sites were healed compared with 100% of the Controls. Pain and assessments of scarring at the treatment sites were reported to be similar between groups. Significant differences were observed between ReCell and Control donor sites. The mean ReCell donor area was approximately 40 times smaller than that of the Control (P < .0001), and after 1 week, significantly more ReCell donor sites were healed than Controls (P = .04). Over the first 16 weeks, patients reported significantly less pain at the ReCell donor sites compared with Controls (P ≤ .05 at each time point). Long-term patients reported higher satisfaction with ReCell donor site outcomes compared with the Controls. This study provides evidence that the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns with ASCS results in comparable healing, with significantly reduced donor site size and pain and improved appearance relative to STSG.

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 12 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 153 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 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 8%
Other 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 75 49%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 28%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 75 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 08 September 2026.
All research outputs
#335,642
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Journal of burn care & research
#7
of 2,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,816
of 375,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of burn care & research
#1
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 375,290 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 97% of its contemporaries.