↓ Skip to main content

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 771 Summary: Umbilical Cord Blood Banking.

Overview of attention for article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
13 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 771 Summary: Umbilical Cord Blood Banking.
Published in
Obstetrics & Gynecology, March 2019
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000003129
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Since the first successful umbilical cord blood transplant in 1988, it has been estimated that more than 35,000 transplants have been performed in children and adults for the correction of inborn errors of metabolism, hematopoietic malignancies, and genetic disorders of the blood and immune system. Two types of banks have emerged for the collection and storage of umbilical cord blood: 1) public banks and 2) private banks. The benefits and limitations of public versus private umbilical cord blood banking should be reviewed with the patient because they serve different purposes. This patient discussion also should include the concept of autologous and allogeneic use of umbilical cord blood. Umbilical cord blood collected from a neonate cannot be used to treat a genetic disease or malignancy in that same individual (autologous transplant) because stored cord blood contains the same genetic variant or premalignant cells that led to the condition being treated. There is no current evidence to support the use of an autologous umbilical cord blood sample in regenerative medicine. Patients should be made aware of the quality control and regulatory organizations that provide oversight for the process of umbilical cord collection and storage. Umbilical cord blood collection should not compromise obstetric or neonatal care or alter routine practice of delayed umbilical cord clamping with the rare exception of medical indications for directed donation. Therefore, it is important to inform patients that the medical condition of the woman or neonate may prevent adequate umbilical cord blood collection. This document is updated with a statement that the routine use of private cord blood banking is not supported by available evidence and that public banking is the recommended method of obtaining cord blood. In addition, the importance of contribution from all ethnicities and races to public banks is highlighted.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 1 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,230,658
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#2,893
of 8,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,016
of 367,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#52
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 367,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 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 58% of its contemporaries.