↓ Skip to main content

The mesenchymal stem cells in multiple sclerosis (MSCIMS) trial protocol and baseline cohort characteristics: an open-label pre-test: post-test study with blinded outcome assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
The mesenchymal stem cells in multiple sclerosis (MSCIMS) trial protocol and baseline cohort characteristics: an open-label pre-test: post-test study with blinded outcome assessments
Published in
Trials, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-12-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Connick, Madhan Kolappan, Rickie Patani, Michael A Scott, Charles Crawley, Xiao-Ling He, Karen Richardson, Kelly Barber, Daniel J Webber, Claudia AM Wheeler-Kingshott, Daniel J Tozer, Rebecca S Samson, David L Thomas, Ming-Qing Du, Shi L Luan, Andrew W Michell, Daniel R Altmann, Alan J Thompson, David H Miller, Alastair Compston, Siddharthan Chandran

Abstract

No treatments are currently available that slow, stop, or reverse disease progression in established multiple sclerosis (MS). The Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Multiple Sclerosis (MSCIMS) trial tests the safety and feasibility of treatment with a candidate cell-based therapy, and will inform the wider challenge of designing early phase clinical trials to evaluate putative neuroprotective therapies in progressive MS. Illustrated by the MSCIMS trial protocol, we describe a novel methodology based on detailed assessment of the anterior visual pathway as a model of wider disease processes--the "sentinel lesion approach".

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 184 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 12 6%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 21 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 13%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 29 15%

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 03 April 2014.
All research outputs
#9,557,446
of 12,440,051 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,370
of 3,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,279
of 192,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#38
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,051 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 3,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 192,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.