↓ Skip to main content

Identification of adequate vehicles to carry nerve regeneration inducers using tubulisation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Identification of adequate vehicles to carry nerve regeneration inducers using tubulisation
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2202-13-100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Helena do Nascimento-Elias, Bruno César Fresnesdas, Maria Cristina Lopes Schiavoni, Natália Fernanda Gaspar de Almeida, Ana Paula Santos, Jean de Oliveira Ramos, Wilson Marques Junior, Amilton Antunes Barreira

Abstract

Axonal regeneration depends on many factors, such as the type of injury and repair, age, distance from the cell body and distance of the denervated muscle, loss of surrounding tissue and the type of injured nerve. Experimental models use tubulisation with a silicone tube to research regenerative factors and substances to induce regeneration. Agarose, collagen and DMEM (Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium) can be used as vehicles. In this study, we compared the ability of these vehicles to induce rat sciatic nerve regeneration with the intent of finding the least active or inert substance. The experiment used 47 female Wistar rats, which were divided into four experimental groups (agarose 4%, agarose 0.4%, collagen, DMEM) and one normal control group. The right sciatic nerve was exposed, and an incision was made that created a 10 mm gap between the distal and proximal stumps. A silicone tube was grafted onto each stump, and the tubes were filled with the respective media. After 70 days, the sciatic nerve was removed. We evaluated the formation of a regeneration cable, nerve fibre growth, and the functional viability of the regenerated fibres.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 67%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Neuroscience 2 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 August 2012.
All research outputs
#10,994,830
of 12,372,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#819
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,898
of 124,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 124,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.