↓ Skip to main content

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/scrt543
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison K McLean, Cameron Stewart, Ian Kerridge

Abstract

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 19%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 04 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,523,891
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#71
of 2,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,193
of 364,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 364,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.