↓ Skip to main content

Platelet‐rich plasma: why intra‐articular? A systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical evidence on PRP for joint degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 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.
Title
Platelet‐rich plasma: why intra‐articular? A systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical evidence on PRP for joint degeneration
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00167-013-2743-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Filardo, E. Kon, A. Roffi, B. Di Matteo, M. L. Merli, M. Marcacci

Abstract

The aim of this review was to analyze the available evidence on the clinical application of this biological approach for the injective treatment of cartilage lesions and joint degeneration, together with preclinical studies to support the rationale for the use of platelet concentrates, to shed some light and give indications on what to treat and what to expect from intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 291 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 16%
Student > Master 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Student > Postgraduate 26 9%
Other 25 8%
Other 70 23%
Unknown 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 83 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,947,550
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#184
of 2,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,412
of 307,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#3
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 307,003 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 96% of its contemporaries.