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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Therapeutic potential of human embryonic stem cell transplantation in patients with cerebral palsy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-014-0318-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geeta Shroff, Anupama Gupta, Jitender Kumar Barthakur |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThe present study evaluated the efficacy and safety of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) therapy in patients with CP.Materials and methodsThis analysis included patients (30 days-18 yr) with documented diagnosis of CP. The study consisted of four treatment phases (T1, T2, T3, T4) separated by gap phases. Efficacy of hESC therapy was evaluated based on Gross Motor Function Classification Scores Expanded and Revised (GMFCS- E & R; 1-good to 5-bad).ResultsNinety one patients were included and all received hESC therapy in T1, 66 patients returned for T2, 38 patients for T3, and 15 patients for T4. Overall, 30.2% patients achieved GMFCS- E & R score 1 during the study with different number of patients achieving GMFCS score 1 by the end of each treatment phase (T1: 6 [6.6%]; T2: 7 [10.6%]; T3: 11 [28.9%]; and T4: 5 [33.3%]). All patients in up to 2 yr (n¿=¿10), 2-4 yr (n¿=¿10), 4-6 yr (n¿=¿9), and 6-12 yr (n¿=¿8) age groups except one of the 5 patients in the age group of 12-18 yr transitioned from GMFCS-E & R score 5 to lower scores by end of T1. Most patients transitioned to GMFCS-E & R score 2 (n¿=¿34) from higher scores by end of T2. Eleven patients achieved GMFCS-E & R score 1 by end of T3. No serious adverse events were observed.ConclusionUse of hESC therapy in patients with CP is effective and safe. hESC therapy has demonstrated significant improvement in GMFCS-E & R scale. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,240,590
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#361
of 3,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,100
of 356,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#13
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 356,557 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.