↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic strategies for cell-based neovascularization in critical limb ischemia

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Therapeutic strategies for cell-based neovascularization in critical limb ischemia
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1153-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Makoto Samura, Tohru Hosoyama, Yuriko Takeuchi, Koji Ueno, Noriyasu Morikage, Kimikazu Hamano

Abstract

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) causes severe ischemic rest pain, ulcer, and gangrene in the lower limbs. In spite of angioplasty and surgery, CLI patients without suitable artery inflow or enough vascular bed in the lesions are often forced to undergo amputation of a major limb. Cell-based therapeutic angiogenesis has the potential to treat ischemic lesions by promoting the formation of collateral vessel networks and the vascular bed. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells and bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells are the most frequently employed cell types in CLI clinical trials. However, the clinical outcomes of cell-based therapeutic angiogenesis using these cells have not provided the promised benefits for CLI patients, reinforcing the need for novel cell-based therapeutic angiogenesis strategies to cure untreatable CLI patients. Recent studies have demonstrated the possible enhancement of therapeutic efficacy in ischemic diseases by preconditioned graft cells. Moreover, judging from past clinical trials, the identification of adequate transplant timing and responders to cell-based therapy is important for improving therapeutic outcomes in CLI patients in clinical settings. Thus, to establish cell-based therapeutic angiogenesis as one of the most promising therapeutic strategies for CLI patients, its advantages and limitations should be taken into account.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Engineering 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 22%
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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,448,169
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,250
of 4,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,083
of 311,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#39
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 311,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.