↓ Skip to main content

Intra-articular injection of two different doses of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: multicenter randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
242 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
352 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
Intra-articular injection of two different doses of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (phase I/II)
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0998-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

José M. Lamo-Espinosa, Gonzalo Mora, Juan F. Blanco, Froilán Granero-Moltó, Jorge M. Nuñez-Córdoba, Carmen Sánchez-Echenique, José M. Bondía, Jesús Dámaso Aquerreta, Enrique J. Andreu, Enrique Ornilla, Eva M. Villarón, Andrés Valentí-Azcárate, Fermín Sánchez-Guijo, María Consuelo del Cañizo, Juan Ramón Valentí-Nin, Felipe Prósper

Abstract

Mesenchymal stromal cells are a promising option to treat knee osteoarthritis. Their safety and usefulness must be confirmed and the optimal dose established. We tested increasing doses of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs) in combination with hyaluronic acid in a randomized clinical trial. A phase I/II multicenter randomized clinical trial with active control was conducted. Thirty patients diagnosed with knee OA were randomly assigned to intraarticularly administered hyaluronic acid alone (control), or together with 10 × 10(6) or 100 × 10(6) cultured autologous BM-MSCs, and followed up for 12 months. Pain and function were assessed using VAS and WOMAC and by measuring the knee motion range. X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging analyses were performed to analyze joint damage. No adverse effects were reported after BM-MSC administration or during follow-up. BM-MSC-administered patients improved according to VAS during all follow-up evaluations and median value (IQR) for control, low-dose and high-dose groups change from 5 (3, 7), 7 (5, 8) and 6 (4, 8) to 4 (3, 5), 2 (1, 3) and 2 (0,4) respectively at 12 months (low-dose vs control group p = 0.005 and high-dose vs control group p < 0.009). BM-MSC-administered patients were also superior according to WOMAC, although improvement in control and low-dose patients could not be significantly sustained beyond 6 months. On the other hand, the BM-MSC high-dose group exhibited an improvement of 16.5 (12, 19) points at 12 months (p < 0.01). Consistent with WOMAC and VAS values, motion ranges remained unaltered in the control group but improved at 12 months with BM-MSCs. X-ray revealed a reduction of the knee joint space width in the control group that was not seen in BM-MSCs high-dose group. MRI (WORMS protocol) showed that joint damage decreased only in the BM-MSC high-dose group, albeit slightly. The single intraarticular injection of in vitro expanded autologous BM-MSCs together with HA is a safe and feasible procedure that results in a clinical and functional improvement of knee OA, especially when 100 × 10(6) cells are administered. These results pave the way for a future phase III clinical trial. gov identifier NCT02123368. Nº EudraCT: 2009-017624-72.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 350 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 15%
Student > Bachelor 45 13%
Student > Master 34 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 58 16%
Unknown 104 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 6%
Engineering 18 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 5%
Other 36 10%
Unknown 118 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#794,933
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#147
of 4,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,537
of 338,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#4
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,002 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 96% 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 338,615 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.