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 |
Autologous, allogeneic, induced pluripotent stem cell or a combination stem cell therapy? Where are we headed in cartilage repair and why: a concise review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-015-0086-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucienne A. Vonk, Tommy S. de Windt, Ineke C. M. Slaper-Cortenbach, Daniël B. F. Saris |
| Abstract |
The evolution of articular cartilage repair procedures has resulted in a variety of cell-based therapies that use both autologous and allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). As these cells are increasingly available and show promising results both in vitro and in vivo, cell-based strategies, which aim to improve ease of use and cost-effectiveness, are progressively explored. The use of MSCs in cartilage repair makes it possible to develop single-stage cell-based therapies. However, true single-stage procedures rely on one intervention, which will limit cell sources to fraction concentrates containing autologous MSCs or culture-expanded allogeneic MSCs. So far, it seems both autologous and allogeneic cells can safely be applied, but clinical studies are still ongoing and little information on clinical outcome is available. Further development of cell-based therapies may lead to clinical-grade, standardized, off-the-shelf products with easy handling for orthopedic surgeons. Although as of yet no preclinical or clinical studies are ongoing which explore the use of induced pluripotent stem cells for cartilage repair, a good manufacturing practice-grade induced pluripotent stem cell line might become the basis for such a product in the future, providing that cell fate can be controlled. The use of stem cells in clinical trials brings along new ethical issues, such as proper controls and selecting primary outcome measures. More clinical trials are needed to estimate detailed risk-benefit ratios and trials must be carefully designed to minimize risks and burdens for patients while choosing outcome measures that allow for adequate comparison with results from similar trials. In this review, we discuss the different aspects of new stem cell-based treatments, including safety and ethical issues, as well as provide an overview of current clinical trials exploring these approaches and future perspectives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 20% |
| Researcher | 35 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 15% |
| Engineering | 18 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 31 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,311,153
of 23,545,680 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#59
of 2,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,363
of 266,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,545,680 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 2,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 266,142 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 98% of its contemporaries.