↓ Skip to main content

Current status of pediatric transplantation in Japan

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Current status of pediatric transplantation in Japan
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0241-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nao Nishimura, Mureo Kasahara, Kenji Ishikura, Satoshi Nakagawa

Abstract

Brain-dead donor organ transplantation has been available to children in Japan since the 2010 revision of the Organ Transplant Law. Of the 50-60 brain-dead donor organ transplants performed annually in Japan, however, very few (0-4 per year) are performed in children. Again, while those receiving liver, heart, and kidney transplants are reported to fare better than their counterparts in the rest of the world, organ shortage is becoming a matter of great concern. Very few organs become available from brain-dead donors or are transplanted to adults if made available at all, with some children dying while on the brain-dead organ waiting list. Against this background, living-donor transplants, split-liver transplants, domino transplants, and hepatocyte transplants represent alternative modalities, each of which is shown to be associated with favorable outcomes. Challenges exist, include streamlining the existing framework for promoting organ donation for children and between children.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 May 2022.
All research outputs
#14,357,979
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#356
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,644
of 315,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 315,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.