↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and the Safety of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Treatment in Patients with Muscular Dystrophy: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Efficacy and the Safety of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Treatment in Patients with Muscular Dystrophy: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorota Sienkiewicz, Wojciech Kułak, Bożena Okurowska-Zawada, Grażyna Paszko-Patej, Janusz Wojtkowski, Karolina Sochoń, Anna Kalinowska, Kamila Okulczyk, Jerzy Sienkiewicz, Edward McEachern

Abstract

The current standard treatment for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) involves corticosteroids. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) induces the proliferation of satellite cells and myoblasts and, in turn, muscle regeneration. Beneficial effects of G-CSF were also described for skeletal muscle disorders. We assessed the safety and effects of using G-CSF to promote muscle strength in patients with DMD. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged 5-15 years with diagnosed with DMD confirmed by genetic test or biopsy. Fourteen patients were treated with steroids, and their use was not changed in this study. Diagnoses were confirmed by genetic tests: deletions were detected in 11 patients and duplications in 5 patients. Nineteen 5- to 15-year-old patients diagnosed with DMD-9 were in wheelchairs, whereas 10 were mobile and independent-completed an open study. Participants received a clinical examination and performed physiotherapeutic and laboratory tests to gage their manual muscle strength, their isometric force using a hand dynamometer, and aerobic capacity [i.e., 6-min walk test (6MWT)] before and after therapy. Each participant received G-CSF (5 µg/kg/body/day) subcutaneously for five consecutive days during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 12th month. Laboratory investigations that included full blood count and biochemistry were performed. Side effects of G-CSF treatment were assessed during each visit. During each cycle of G-CSF administration in the hospital, rehabilitation was also applied. All patients received regular ambulatory rehabilitation. The subcutaneous administration of G-CSF improved muscle strength in participants. We recorded a significant increase in the distance covered in the 6MWT, either on foot or in a wheelchair, increased muscle force in isometric force, and a statistically significant decrease in the activity of the muscle enzyme creatine kinase after nearly every cycle of treatment. We observed no side effects of treatment with G-CSF. Our findings suggest that G-CSF increases muscle strength in patients with DMD, who demonstrated that G-CSF therapy is safe and easily tolerable.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,918,662
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,149
of 11,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,598
of 327,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#109
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 327,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.