↓ Skip to main content

Neutrophil contribution to spinal cord injury and repair

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Neutrophil contribution to spinal cord injury and repair
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12974-014-0150-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginie Neirinckx, Cécile Coste, Rachelle Franzen, André Gothot, Bernard Rogister, Sabine Wislet

Abstract

Spinal cord injuries remain a critical issue in experimental and clinical research nowadays, and it is now well accepted that the immune response and subsequent inflammatory reactions are of significant importance in regulating the damage/repair balance after injury. The role of macrophages in such nervous system lesions now becomes clearer and their contribution in the wound healing process has been largely described in the last few years. Conversely, the contribution of neutrophils has traditionally been considered as detrimental and unfavorable to proper tissue regeneration, even if there are very few studies available on their precise impact in spinal cord lesions. Indeed, recent data show that neutrophils are required for promoting functional recovery after spinal cord trauma. In this review, we gathered recent evidence concerning the role of neutrophils in spinal cord injuries but also in some other neurological diseases, highlighting the need for further understanding the different mechanisms involved in spinal cord injury and repair.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 139 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 34 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 36 25%
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 02 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,927
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2,061
of 2,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,513
of 236,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 236,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.