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 |
Granulocyte transfusions in children and adults with hematological malignancies: benefits and controversies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-015-0724-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chiara Cugno, Sara Deola, Perla Filippini, David F. Stroncek, Sergio Rutella |
| Abstract |
Bacterial and fungal infections continue to pose a major clinical challenge in patients with prolonged severe neutropenia after chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). With the advent of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize neutrophils in healthy donors, granulocyte transfusions have been broadly used to prevent and/or treat life-threatening infections in patients with severe febrile neutropenia and/or neutrophil dysfunction. Although the results of randomized controlled trials are inconclusive, there are suggestions from pilot and retrospective studies that granulocyte transfusions may benefit selected categories of patients. We will critically appraise the evidence related to the use of therapeutic granulocyte transfusions in children and adults, highlighting current controversies in the field and discussing complementary approaches to modulate phagocyte function in the host. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 49% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,296,405
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,313
of 3,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,206
of 252,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#66
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 252,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.