↓ Skip to main content

Pathogen Inactivation of Cellular Blood Products—An Additional Safety Layer in Transfusion Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Pathogen Inactivation of Cellular Blood Products—An Additional Safety Layer in Transfusion Medicine
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Axel Seltsam

Abstract

In line with current microbial risk reduction efforts, pathogen inactivation (PI) technologies for blood components promise to reduce the residual risk of known and emerging infectious agents. The implementation of PI of labile blood components is slowly but steadily increasing. This review discusses the relevance of PI for the field of transfusion medicine and describes the available and emerging PI technologies that can be used to treat cellular blood products such as platelet and red blood cell units. In collaboration with the French medical device manufacturer Macopharma, the German Red Cross Blood Services developed a new UVC light-based PI method for platelet units, which is currently being investigated in clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 June 2022.
All research outputs
#4,983,759
of 24,456,171 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,354
of 6,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,267
of 448,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#18
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,456,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 448,654 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 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.