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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Meta-analysis on the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with autologous stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-017-0683-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jianming Guo, Alan Dardik, Kacey Fang, Ruixue Huang, Yongquan Gu |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade, many studies have indicated a therapeutic potential for treating diabetic lower extremity ulcers with autologous stem cells. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) with autologous stem cells. The search strategy included the Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane's Library databases. The endpoint measured was the healing of DFUs.Six eligible randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were screened from related published studies and reviewed for meta-analysis. The overall meta-analysis showed that stem cell administration was significantly favorable for healing diabetic ulcers (mean difference (MD) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.65; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses indicated that stem cells seemed to exert similar beneficial effects on patients with ulcer size ≥ 5 cm(2) (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; p < 0.00001) and < 5 cm(2) (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.54; p < 0.00001). Furthermore, stem cells had similar effects on patients aged ≥ 70 years (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.14-1.08; p = 0.01) and < 70 years (MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.58; p < 0.00001). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests a promising role for stem cells in DFU treatment. This review will pave the way to further study on the long-term effects of stem cell-based therapy and large-scale RCTs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
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 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,350
of 2,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,896
of 325,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#43
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 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 2,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 325,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.