↓ Skip to main content

Implantation of hyaluronic acid hydrogel prevents the pain phenotype in a rat model of intervertebral disc injury

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, April 2018
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Implantation of hyaluronic acid hydrogel prevents the pain phenotype in a rat model of intervertebral disc injury
Published in
Science Advances, April 2018
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aaq0597
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isma Liza Mohd Isa, Sunny A. Abbah, Michelle Kilcoyne, Daisuke Sakai, Peter Dockery, David P. Finn, Abhay Pandit

Abstract

Painful intervertebral disc degeneration is mediated by inflammation that modulates glycosylation and induces hyperinnervation and sensory sensitization, which result in discogenic pain. Hyaluronic acid (HA) used as a therapeutic biomaterial can reduce inflammation and pain, but the effects of HA therapy on glycosylation and pain associated with disc degeneration have not been previously determined. We describe a novel rat model of pain induced by intervertebral disc injury, with validation of the pain phenotype by morphine treatment. Using this model, we assessed the efficacy of HA hydrogel for the alleviation of pain, demonstrating that it reduced nociceptive behavior, an effect associated with down-regulation of nociception markers and inhibition of hyperinnervation. Furthermore, HA hydrogel altered glycosylation and modulated key inflammatory and regulatory signaling pathways, resulting in attenuation of inflammation and regulation of matrix components. Our results suggest that HA hydrogel is a promising clinical candidate for the treatment of back pain caused by degenerated discs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 35%
Researcher 11 26%
Unspecified 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Engineering 4 9%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Other 15 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,951,652
of 13,145,206 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#2,238
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,644
of 269,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#172
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,145,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 124.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 269,895 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.