↓ Skip to main content

Neuroregenerative potential of intravenous G-CSF and autologous peripheral blood stem cells in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Neuroregenerative potential of intravenous G-CSF and autologous peripheral blood stem cells in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1120-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wee-Jin Rah, Young-Ho Lee, Jin-Hwa Moon, Hyun-Ju Jun, Hye-Ryeong Kang, Hani Koh, Hye Jung Eom, Ji Young Lee, Young Jun Lee, Ji Young Kim, Yun-Young Choi, Kyeongil Park, Mi Jung Kim, Seung-Hyun Kim

Abstract

We performed a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study to assess the neuroregenerative potential of intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) followed by infusion of mobilized peripheral blood mononuclear cells (mPBMCs) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Children with non-severe CP were enrolled in this study. G-CSF was administered for 5 days, then mPBMCs were collected by apheresis and cryopreserved. One month later (M1), recipients were randomized to receive either mPBMCs or a placebo infusion, and these treatment groups were switched at 7 months (M7) and observed for another 6 months (M13). We assessed the efficacy of treatment by evaluating neurodevelopmental tests, as well as by brain magnetic resonance imaging-diffusion tensor imaging (MRI-DTI) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) brain positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanning to evaluate the anatomical and functional changes in the brain. Fifty-seven patients aged 4.3 ± 1.9 (range 2-10) years and weighing 16.6 ± 4.9 (range 11.6-56.0) kg were enrolled in this study. The administration of G-CSF as well as the collection and reinfusion of mPBMCs were safe and tolerable. The yield of mPBMCs was comparable to that reported in studies of pediatric donors without CP and patients with nonhematologic diseases. 42.6% of the patients responded to the treatment with higher neurodevelopmental scores than would normally be expected. In addition, larger changes in neurodevelopment test scores were observed in the 1 month after G-CSF administration (M0-M1) than during the 6 months after reinfusion with mPBMCs or placebo (M1-M7 or M7-M13). Patients who received G-CSF followed by mPBMC infusion at 7 months (T7 group) demonstrated significantly more neurodevelopmental improvement than patients who received G-CSF followed by mPBMC infusion at 1 month (T1 group). In contrast to the results of neurodevelopment tests, the results of MRI-DTI at the end of this study showed greater improvement in the T1 group. Although we observed metabolic changes to the cerebellum, thalamus and cerebral cortex in the (18)F-FDG brain PET-CT scans, there were no significant differences in such changes between the mPBMC and placebo group or between the T1 and T7 group. Neurodevelopmental improvement was seen in response to intravenous G-CSF followed by mPBMC reinfusion, particularly to the G-CSF alone even without mPBMC reinfusion. Further studies using a larger number of mPBMCs for the infusion which could be collected by repeated cycles of apheresis or using repeated cycles of G-CSF alone, are needed to clarify the effect of mPBMC reinfusion or G-CSF alone (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02983708. Registered 5 December, 2016, retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 24 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,013,818
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,483
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,930
of 418,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#23
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 418,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.